[Pages H4188-H4226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Pursuant to House Resolution
455 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 284.

{time} 1105

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 further consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 284) revising the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 1998,
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 1999, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, with Mr. Hefley (Chairman
pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on the
legislative day of Thursday, June 4, 1998, all time for general debate
had expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the concurrent resolution is
considered read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The amendment in
the nature of a substitute printed in part 1 of House Report 105-565 is
considered as an original concurrent resolution for the purpose of
amendment under the 5-minute rule and is considered read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

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

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1999.

The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1998 is hereby revised and replaced
and that this is the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 1999 and that the appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 are hereby set forth.

SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the
fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 1998: $1,292,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $1,318,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $1,331,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,358,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,407,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,452,600,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 1998: $0.
Fiscal year 1999: -$4,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: -$10,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: -$21,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: -$28,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: -$37,800,000,000.
(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 1998: $1,359,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $1,408,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $1,443,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,477,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,502,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,571,200,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 1998: $1,343,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $1,401,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $1,435,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,463,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,473,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,540,700,000,000.
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 1998: $50,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $83,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $104,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $105,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $65,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $88,100,000,000.
(5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt
are as follows:
Fiscal year 1998: $5,436,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $5,597,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $5,777,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $5,957,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $6,102,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $6,269,400,000,000.

SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal
years 1998 through 2003 for each major functional category
are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $267,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $268,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $270,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $265,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $274,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $267,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $280,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $269,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $288,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $272,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $296,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $279,800,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,700,000,000.

[[Page H4189]]

Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $18,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $17,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, -$300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$6,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,500,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $24,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $22,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $21,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $20,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $20,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $20,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,500,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $11,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $10,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $10,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $7,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $700,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $4,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $14,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $46,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $44,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $43,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $43,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $43,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $43,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,600,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $7,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $6,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,600,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $61,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $61,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $62,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $63,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $63,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $65,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,900,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $136,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $132,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $143,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $142,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $149,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $149,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $155,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $155,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $162,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $163,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $171,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $172,000,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $199,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $199,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $210,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $211,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $221,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $221,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $239,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $242,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $251,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $248,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $273,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $273,700,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $229,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $234,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $243,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $247,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $255,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $257,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $265,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $264,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $274,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $271,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $284,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $280,400,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,300,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $42,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $42,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $43,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $43,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $43,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $44,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,200,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $25,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,500,000,000.

[[Page H4190]]

Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $25,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $23,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $22,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $22,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,600,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $14,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $13,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $290,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $290,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $296,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $296,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $297,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $297,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $296,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $296,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $296,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $296,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $298,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $298,500,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, -$14,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$14,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$3,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$3,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$3,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,200,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, -$36,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$36,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, -$36,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$36,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, -$36,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$36,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$38,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$38,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$45,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$45,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$35,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$35,900,000,000.

SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

(a) Submissions.--Not later than June 26, 1998, the House
committees named in subsection (b) shall submit their
recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After
receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the
Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill
carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive
revision.
(b) Instructions to House Committees.--
(1) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on
Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total
level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:
$30,400,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1999 and
$157,400,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1999 through
2003.
(2) Committee on banking and financial services.--The House
Committee on Banking and Financial Services shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct
spending such that the total level of direct spending for
that committee does not exceed: -$8,200,000,000 in outlays
for fiscal year 1999 and -$35,100,000,000 in outlays in
fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(3) Committee on commerce.--The House Committee on Commerce
shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that
provide direct spending such that the total level of direct
spending for that committee does not exceed: $417,900,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 1999 and $2,437,900,000,000 in
outlays in fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(4) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House
Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes
in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending
such that the total level of direct spending for that
committee does not exceed: $18,700,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 1999 and $100,400,000,000 in outlays in fiscal
years 1999 through 2003.
(5) Committee on government reform and oversight.--The
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide
direct spending such that the total level of direct spending
for that committee does not exceed: $71,600,000,000 in
outlays for fiscal year 1999 and $384,000,000,000 in outlays
in fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(6) Committee on the judiciary.--The House Committee on the
Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total
level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:
$5,200,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1999 and
$26,500,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(7) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide
direct spending such that the total level of direct spending
for that committee does not exceed: $16,200,000,000 in
outlays for fiscal year 1999 and $78,900,000,000 in outlays
in fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(8) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that the total
level of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:
$23,800,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1999 and
$125,000,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1999 through
2003.
(9) Committee on ways and means.--(A) The House Committee
on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction such that the total level of direct spending for
that committee does not exceed: $411,100,000,000 in outlays
for fiscal year 1999 and $2,374,800,000,000 in outlays in
fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(B) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction such that the total
level of revenues for that committee is not less than:
$1,278,500,000,000 in revenues for fiscal year 1999 and
$6,637,700,000,000 in revenues in fiscal years 1999 through
2003.

SEC. 5. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF COMPENSATION AND PAY FOR
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

In the House, for purposes of enforcing the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, any bill or joint resolution, or
amendment thereto or conference report thereon, establishing
on a prospective basis compensation or pay for any office or
position in the Government at a specified level, the
appropriation for which is provided through annual
discretionary appropriations, shall not be considered as
providing new entitlement authority or new budget authority.

SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the
Treasury, in consultation with the trustees of the social
security trust funds, should consider issuing marketable
interest-bearing securities to the trust funds for fiscal
years beginning after September 30, 1998.

SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE ACT.

(a) Findings.--The 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) 47 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 in lieu of traditional income support and to
assist them in becoming more involved in planning their
future, new public-private relationships that encourage
asset-building should be undertaken;
(4) individual development account programs are
successfully demonstrating the ability to assist low-income
families in building assets while partnering with community
organizations and States in more than 40 public and private
experiments nationwide; and
(5) Federal support for a trial demonstration program would
greatly assist the creative efforts of existing individual
development account experiments.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
legislation should be considered to encourage low-income
individuals and families to accumulate assets through
contributions to individual development accounts as a means
of achieving economic self-sufficiency.

SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ON
CLINICAL CANCER TRIALS.

It is the sense of Congress that legislation should be
considered that provides medicare coverage for beneficiaries'
participation in clinical cancer trials.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE INTERIM PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR
HOME HEALTH BENEFITS UNDER MEDICARE.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) there is concern that the interim payment system for
home health service has adversely affected some home health
care agencies;
(2) the Administration should ensure that the
implementation of the interim payment

[[Page H4191]]

system does not adversely affect the availability of home
health services for medicare beneficiaries;
(3) Congress should carefully examine the Adminstration's
implementation of the home health payment system and make any
necessary changes to ensure that the needs of medicare
beneficiaries are being met; and
(4) the Health Care Financing Administration should quickly
implement the prospective payment system that was enacted
into law last year.

SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SPECIAL EDUCATION.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) Federal courts have found that children with
disabilities are guaranteed an equal opportunity to an
education under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) Congress responded to these court decisions by enacting
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to
ensure free and appropriate public education for children
with disabilities;
(3) IDEA authorizes the Federal Government to provide 40
percent of the average per pupil expenditure for children
with disabilities;
(4) the Federal Government has not fully funded IDEA at its
authorized levels; and
(5) if the Federal Government fully funds IDEA, then local
school districts will have the flexibility to invest in new
technology, hire additional teachers, and purchase books and
supplies.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Federal Government should fully fund programs authorized
under IDEA and that such funding is of the highest priority
among Federal education programs.

SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON BUDGETARY RULES AND TAX CUTS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) in 1990, pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) requirements were
enacted to prevent Congress and the President from increasing
the deficit;
(2) under PAYGO requirements, tax legislation must be
offset by legislation increasing revenues or reducing
entitlement spending;
(3) these requirements prevent Congress from offsetting tax
cuts with discretionary savings or budget surpluses;
(4) the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 will produce the first
surplus in the unified budget in 29 years;
(5) under current trends, the Federal Government could run
an on-budget surplus (which excludes social security and the
postal service) as early as fiscal year 1999; and
(6) while these requirements were useful during a period of
chronic deficit spending, they now limit the ability of
Congress to allow taxpayers to retain more of their own
money.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the reconciliation bill to be considered pursuant to the
reconciliation instructions in section 4--
(1) should permit discretionary savings to be used to
offset tax cuts; and
(2) may make on-budget surpluses available to offset tax
cuts.

SEC. 12. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON TAX RELIEF.

It is the sense of Congress that the revenue levels set
forth in this resolution are predicated on--
(1) eliminating the marriage penalty over an appropriate
period of time; and
(2) providing tax relief targeted at relieving the tax
burden on families, estates, and wages, as well as incentives
to stimulate job creation and economic growth.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute 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 a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not
be subject to amendment.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part 2
of House Report 105-565.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Neumann

Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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:

Part 2 amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Neumann:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SECTION 101. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1999.

The Congress declares that this is the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1999 and that the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2000 through
2003 are hereby set forth.

SEC. 102. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the
fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 1999: $1,304,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $1,314,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,348,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,399,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,452,300,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 1999: -$18,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: -$27,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: -$31,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: -$36,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: -$38,000,000,000.
(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 1999: $1,385,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $1,409,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,448,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,426,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,545,600,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 1999: $1,377,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $1,401,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,433,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,443,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,513,100,000,000.
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 1999: $73,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $87,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $85,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $43,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $60,800,000,000.
(5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt
are as follows:
Fiscal year 1999: $5,596,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $5,777,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $5,957,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $6,102,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $6,269,300,000,000.

SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal
years 1999 through 2003 for each major functional category
are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $278,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $273,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $283,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $277,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $301,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $289,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $315,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $297,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $324,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $306,000,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $11,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,100,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $16,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $16,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority,-$1,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority,-$1,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$1,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority,-$2,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$3,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority,-$6,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$6,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority,-$1,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$3,100,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):

[[Page H4192]]

Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $19,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $17,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $10,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $10,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $9,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $9,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,000,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $3,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $9,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $10,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,000,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $45,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $48,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $50,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $51,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $53,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,100,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $8,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $7,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $6,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,600,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $60,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $60,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $60,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $61,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $65,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,000,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $139,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $137,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $141,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $141,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $144,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $144,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $146,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $147,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $151,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $152,400,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $209,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $210,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $220,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $219,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $237,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $240,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $248,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $246,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $270,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $270,400,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $236,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $240,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $245,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $247,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $254,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $254,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $214,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $259,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $271,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $268,300,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,300,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $42,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $43,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $43,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $43,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $44,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,200,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $24,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $22,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $21,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $21,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $14,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $12,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $11,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $244,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $244,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $238,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $238,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $230,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $230,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $223,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $223,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $217,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $217,400,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority,-$3,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$3,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority,-$4,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$4,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority,-$9,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority,-$9,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$9,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority,-$6,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$6,000,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority,-$44,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$44,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority,-$44,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$44,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority,-$46,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$46,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority,-$54,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$54,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority,-$46,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays,-$46,300,000,000.
TITLE II--SENSE OF HOUSE PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:

[[Page H4193]]

(1) The social security program currently collects more in
taxes than it pays out in benefits to our country's senior
citizens.
(2) Taxes collected exclusively for the social security
program should not be spent on any other program.
(3) Social security benefits are expected to consistently
exceed social security payroll taxes starting in 2013.
(4) Congress should avoid increasing taxes, increasing
borrowing, raising the retirement age, or cutting social
security cost-of-living adjustments to pay social security
benefits.
(5) Negotiable treasury bonds are safe, real assets that
can be sold for cash when income to the social security trust
funds is not sufficient to pay benefits for seniors in 2013.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House
that--
(1) the amount by which social security payroll taxes
exceed social security benefits paid shall be invested in
negotiable treasury bonds issued by the United States
Government and should not be counted as surplus dollars; and
(2) such negotiable Treasury bonds should be redeemable at
any time at the purchase price.

SEC. 202. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING TAX RELIEF.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that this concurrent
resolution dedicates $150,000,000,000 over 5 years to reduce
the tax burden on American families.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
these funds should be used to--
(1) provide across-the-board tax relief by expanding the 15
percent tax bracket by 15 percent for married individuals
(whether filing a joint or separate return), heads of
households, and unmarried individuals;
(2) eliminate the marriage penalty by making the joint
income threshold exactly double that of the individual income
threshold in all tax brackets and by making the standard
deduction for joint filers exactly double that of individual
filers;
(3) restore the 12-month holding period on capital gains;
and
(4) eliminate the ``death tax''.

SEC. 203. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE BUDGET SURPLUS.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The Congressional Budget Office in its Spring
projections has underestimated the revenues collected by the
Federal Government for the last 3 years.
(2) The United States is experiencing remarkable economic
growth with no signs of an economic slowdown because the
Federal Government is borrowing less from the private sector.
(3) Revenues to the Federal Government are growing at an
annual rate far greater than projected by the Congressional
Budget Office in March 1998.
(4) The Federal Government will likely receive
significantly more revenues in fiscal years 1999 through 2003
than projected by the Congressional Budget Office in March
1998.
(5) Revenues received above and beyond those projected by
the Congressional Budget Office in March 1998 should not be
spent to create more ineffective Washington programs.
(6) Additional revenues come from American families who are
forced to give far too much of their hard-earned income to
the Federal Government.
(7) Working Americans deserve to keep more of their income
instead of sending it to Washington, D.C., for Congress to
spend.
(8) Congress irresponsibly spent more than it received over
the last 30 years, creating $5,500,000,000,000 Federal debt.
(9) The Congress and the President have a basic moral and
ethical responsibility to future generations to repay the
Federal debt, including money borrowed from the social
security trust funds.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House
that--
(1) any additional revenues collected by the Federal
Government above and beyond the Congressional Budget Office
March 1998 projections for fiscal years 1999 through 2003
should be divided equally and used to reduce taxes on
American families and to pay off the $5,500,000,000,000
Federal debt, prioritizing social security;
(2) such tax reductions should be enacted in the following
order--
(A) expand education individual retirement accounts;
(B) index capital gains to the rate of inflation;
(C) immediate 100 percent deduction for health insurance
premiums for employees and self-employed;
(D) eliminate social security earnings limit;
(E) repeal 1993 tax increase on social security benefits;
(F) repeal the alternative minimum tax for individuals and
corporations; and
(G) permanently extend the research and development tax
credit; and
(3) efforts to repay the Federal debt should begin by
replacing the nonnegotiable Treasury bonds, in the social
security trust fund with marketable Treasury bills redeemable
at any time for the purchase price.

SEC. 204. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING TAXES AND
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) American taxpayers pay too much in taxes to support a
Federal Government which is too large.
(2) Taxpayers should benefit from any changes in law which
reduce Federal Government spending.
(3) Current law prohibits savings from reduced
discretionary spending from being passed along to the
American people through a reduction in their tax burden.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
budget laws should be changed to allow discretionary spending
reductions to be dedicated to tax relief.

SEC. 205. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING PUTTING SOCIAL
SECURITY FIRST.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The President has encouraged the Congress to put social
security first by not spending expected unified budget
surpluses, though the Congressional Budget Office estimates
that the President's budget for fiscal year 1999 does spend
unified budget surpluses.
(2) The Congress currently has no method for dedicating
savings from amendments to appropriation bills for the
purpose of putting social security first.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
the Congress should establish a procedure that would allow
amendments to appropriation bills to dedicate all budget
savings to the President's plan to put social security first.

SEC. 206. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING EDUCATION.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) Children in the United States should be the best
students in the world.
(2) Quality education for our children will ensure the
United States can compete effectively in the global
marketplace.
(3) Today's students must learn the knowledge and skills
which will lead the world in the next century.
(4) Involving parents in the education of their children
increases children's success at school.
(5) Recent studies by the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development show that increased parental
involvement in children's lives leads to fewer teen
pregnancies, less drug use, lower crime rates, and improved
learning.
(6) Education is, and should remain, primarily a State and
local responsibility.
(7) It is important to let community members offer
suggestions to improve academic achievement within local
schools.
(8) The Federal role in education has failed to produce the
desired results.
(9) Federal regulations and paperwork consume too much of
teachers' and administrators' time and energy, as well as
taxpayer dollars which could be used to improve education.
(10) Creating a national testing program would increase the
Federal burden on local schools.
(11) State, local, and private schools deserve flexibility
which will allow them to meet the educational needs of
children.
(12) Increasing the role of parents, teachers, and local
community members will improve local schools.
(13) There is not a significant relationship between
Federal education spending and academic achievement.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House
that--
(1) the Department of Education, States, and local
educational agencies should spend at least 95 percent of
Federal education tax dollars in our children's classrooms;
(2) the Goals 2000 program should be terminated, and funds
should be given directly to States and local school
districts;
(3) the Congress should enact legislation to prevent the
development and administration of a national testing program;
and
(4) the Department of Education should limit its role in
education to functions which cannot be performed by State or
local school officials.

SEC. 207. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE FOR THE
CHILDREN OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) Children in our Nation's capital deserve to have the
best education available.
(2) Many parents in the District of Columbia would prefer
to send their children to the school of their choice, whether
public, private, religious, or home.
(3) Allowing parents to evaluate and choose the proper
school for their children gives them an invested interest in
helping their children succeed.
(4) Giving children an opportunity to attend the school
which best meets their needs will best prepare them for the
future.
(5) Letting parents choose a school which reflects the
moral or religious beliefs of their children will enhance the
children's character and learning experience.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
there should be a Federal pilot program to provide low-income
children in the District of Columbia with the opportunity to
attend the public, private, religious, or home school of
their parents' choice.

SEC. 208. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING PARTIAL-BIRTH
ABORTIONS.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) Partial-birth abortions allow a child to be delivered
until only its head remains in the birth canal.
(2) Partial-birth abortions involve piercing the child's
skull and removing its brain.

[[Page H4194]]

(3) A large majority of Americans object to partially
delivering a child and then killing it.
(4) Both Houses of Congress have consistently supported
legislation to ban partial-birth abortions.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
partial-birth abortions should be banned in the United States
unless such a procedure is needed to save the life of the
mother.

SEC. 209. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-
SPONSORED PROMOTION OF ABORTION.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) Title X of the Public Health Service Act was enacted to
help reduce the unplanned pregnancy rate, especially among
teenagers.
(2) Title X has not only failed to reduce the teenage
pregnancy rate, out-of-wedlock births, and sexually
transmitted diseases, it has made these problems worse.
(3) Taxpayer-funded title X family planning clinics are
currently required to counsel pregnant girls and women about
all of their ``pregnancy management options'', including
abortion.
(4) Title X clinics also require clinic staff, following
such ``counseling,'' to refer girls and women who want an
abortion to clinics that perform them.
(5) Many of these abortion clinics are operated by the same
organizations that operate title X clinics.
(6) The United States Government through title X is using
taxpayer dollars to subsidize activities destructive to human
life.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize abortion or
organizations that promote or perform abortions.

SEC. 210. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING TITLE X FUNDING.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The title X of the Public Health Service Act family
planning program provides contraceptives, treatment for
sexually transmitted diseases, and sexual counseling to
minors without parental consent or notification.
(2) Almost 1,500,000 American minors receive title X family
planning services each year.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
organizations or businesses which receive funds through
Federal programs should obtain parental consent or
confirmation of parental notification before contraceptives
are provided to a minor.

SEC. 211. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING INTERNATIONAL
POPULATION CONTROL PROGRAMS.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) There is international consensus that under no
circumstances should abortion be promoted as a method of
family planning.
(2) The United States provides the largest percentage of
population control assistance among donor nations.
(3) The activities of private organizations supported by
United States taxpayers are a reflection of United States
priorities in developing countries, and United States funds
allow these organizations to expand their programs and
influence.
(4) The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) recently
signed a 4-year, $20,000,000 contract with the People's
Republic of China (PRC) which persists in coercing its people
to obtain abortions and undergo involuntary sterilizations.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House
that--
(1) United States taxpayers should not be forced to support
international family planning programs;
(2) if the Congress is unwilling to stop supporting
international family planning programs with taxpayer dollars,
the Congress should limit such support to organizations that
certify they will not perform, or lobby for the legalization
of, abortions in other countries; and
(3) United States taxpayers should not be forced to support
the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA) if it is
conducting activities in the People's Republic of China (PRC)
and the PRC's population control program continues to utilize
coercive abortion.

SEC. 212. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) Human life is a precious resource which should not be
created or destroyed simply for scientific experiments.
(2) A human embryo is a human being that must be accorded
the moral status of a person from the time of fertilization.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
Congress should prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars for the
creation of human embryos for research purposes and research
in which human embryos are knowingly destroyed.

SEC. 213. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING HUMAN CLONING.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) Scientists around the world are actively participating
in experiments which attempt to clone animals.
(2) Several of these experiments have succeeded in creating
genetic clones of animals.
(3) The technology used in such experiments could be used
to create genetically identical human beings;
(4) It is unethical and immoral to experiment with the
creation of human life.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
any research on the cloning of humans should by prohibited by
Federal law.

SEC. 214. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) Traditional marriages consist of one man and one woman.
(2) Strong families are the cornerstone of our society and
our country.
(3) Children benefit from strong families.
(4) The Congress passed and the President signed into law
legislation defining marriage as the union between one man
and one woman for purposes of Federal programs.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
future legislation and regulations should recognize the
importance of the traditional family in the United States.

SEC. 215. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT
FOR THE ARTS.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The Federal Government's involvement in funding for the
arts has become increasingly controversial.
(2) Millions of United States taxpayers have been forced to
support both artists and organizations to which they object.
(3) The National Endowment for the Arts, despite
congressional instructions to avoid controversial subject
matters, continues to subsidize offensive art.
(4) More than 99 percent of funding for the arts is
obtained from private sources.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts should be
eliminated.

SEC. 216. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING FOREIGN AID.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The nation of Israel has been a reliable and dependable
ally to the United States.
(2) The United States' support for Israel is vital to
achieving peace in the Middle East.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
aid to Israel should not be reduced.

SEC. 217. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) One of the most basic human rights is the right to
religious freedom.
(2) The United States has a strong history of protecting
individuals' right to religious liberty and encouraging other
countries to do the same.
(3) Recent reports indicate that several countries continue
to persecute individuals based on their religious beliefs.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
the United States should encourage other countries to protect
religious freedom and allow their citizens to practice the
faith that they choose without retribution.
Amend the title so as to read: ``A concurrent resolution
establishing the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 1999 and setting forth appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and
2003.''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann).
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, the Conservative Action Team, or CATs,
was founded to get this Congress back on track with the agenda the
American people sent us to achieve in 1994. Today we bring before this
House a budget that does exactly that. In fact the CATs budget proposal
which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and others in CATs have worked so hard on is
the only conservative budget before this House today. It is the only
budget to hold the line on government spending to at or below
inflation. It is the only budget that returns $150 billion in tax
relief to all Americans, to families and to small businesses. It is the
only budget which preserves and protects Social Security by putting
real assets into the trust fund, and the only budget that strengthens
our national defense.
The American people want us to hold the line on spending. In a recent
poll conducted by Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, 90 percent of Americans
believe that we should hold the rate of growth of government to
inflation or below the rate of inflation. The CATs budget, as this
chart shows, is the only budget that holds spending below the rate of
inflation, the only balanced budget that reflects that priority of 90
percent of Americans.
The CATs budget saves $280 billion in spending off of the projected
levels of spending. Many in Washington call

[[Page H4195]]

that a cut. However, when you are increasing by 2.6 percent, although
it is below the rate of inflation, only in Washington would that be
referred to as a cut.
The CATs budget is the only budget to cut taxes. We have $150 billion
in tax cuts. It is the only budget that will cut it by that amount.
President Clinton in his budget raises taxes by $120 billion. This
Congress in the last vote rejected that budget overwhelmingly. The
Committee on the Budget cuts taxes by $100 billion. But the CATs budget
would provide $150 billion in tax cuts, relief for all Americans,
including total elimination of the marriage penalty, an across-the-
board tax cut for all Americans by increasing the 15 percent bracket, a
cut in capital gains, and elimination of the death taxes.
If the economy continues to grow, the CATs budget will be able to
have $480 billion in tax cuts, allowing us full deductibility of health
insurance, indexing of capital gains, repealing of the alternative
minimum tax, providing for educational savings accounts, and repealing
President Clinton's tax increase on Social Security.
The way we do this is by designating 50 percent of any additional
revenue collected beyond that projected so that if the economy
continues to grow, 50 percent of that extra revenue will go to tax
cuts, 50 percent will go to pay off the $5.5 trillion national debt.
The CATs budget addresses the moral imperative of protecting Social
Security. One of Washington's dirty little secrets is that Social
Security tax surpluses are being set aside and saved for future
generations. In reality, for 20 years they have been spent on
government programs. The CATs budget puts real assets into the Social
Security trust fund by purchasing negotiable Treasury bonds. We put
$275 billion in real assets into Social Security.
National security is also a priority in the CATs budget. We make our
national defense a priority, because today we read about China being
given national security secrets so that they can develop nuclear
weapons that will hit every State in the union. India and Pakistan are
becoming nuclear powers. Saddam Hussein has been able to thumb his nose
at President Clinton who cannot re-create the Gulf War to stop him
because we have cut our defenses too much. In fact, President Clinton's
defense budget request, $270 billion for next year, represents a 1.1
percent decrease in real terms for defense spending. This is a 39
percent drop from the spending levels of the 1980s. As a result, we
hear about jet fighters not able to fly because their parts are being
cannibalized, about soldiers training without bullets because there are
no supplies, about men and women in our armed forces being sent out on
active duty twice as long as during the Cold War because there are not
enough ships in our Navy, not enough divisions in our Army, not enough
battalions in our Marines and not enough air wings in our Air Force. So
critical is this problem that it is now questionable whether we are
able to meet our global responsibilities or counter hostile powers in
an increasingly unstable and dangerous world. The CATs budget increases
defense spending by 56 percent over the budget agreement. This is the
amount equal to inflation and would allow America to continue to be the
preeminent superpower.
Mr. Chairman, while all of us are pleased with the committee's
budget, specifically its commitment to eliminate the marriage penalty,
we can do more and we must do more. The CATs budget demonstrates that
this is very possible. We make government smaller, we provide overdue
tax relief for Americans, we protect Social Security, and we increase
spending on national defense.
I urge all of my colleagues and certainly all of my colleagues who
wish to call themselves a conservative, vote for the Conservative
Action Team budget so that we can put this Congress back on track the
way the American people want us to go in this year, 1998. I commend the
members of the CATs team who worked on this budget.

{time} 1115

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I have not had the opportunity to read the
Neumann substitute, but I have read the Kasich resolution, and I have
read the report that accompanied that resolution, dated May 12, which
amplified where the cuts he was proposing might come from.
I would like to pose some questions to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Neumann), the sponsor of this substitute, which I will allow him
to answer on his time because I do not have enough myself to grant him,
but here are the questions:
I am concerned, interested, curious to know if the gentleman's
substitute corrects what I view as some serious faults, defects,
shortcomings, inequities in the Kasich resolution. Does he correct
these problems or in his zeal for a bigger tax cut does he actually
make them worse?
First issue raised on the floor last night: The Kasich resolution
delivers America's veterans a double whammy. They have already suffered
a $10 to $17 billion extinguishment of their disability rights when in
the transportation bill we wiped out their rights to smoking-related
disability benefits. And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield at the end, and I
will give the gentleman from Wisconsin a list of these things so he can
respond to it because it is a rather lengthy list.
The Kasich resolution, despite the fact that the transportation bill
has already extinguished those benefits, the Kasich resolution has
reconciliation directions in it to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
which calls on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to cut veterans'
benefits by another $10 billion. I would like to know if the
gentleman's resolution does the same thing or does he correct this
gross inequity?
Another point: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) in a last-minute
move shifted $10 billion in cuts from Medicare over to the account
known as income security, and we all know where that cut is coming out
of. It is coming out of the welfare block grant, the so-called TANF
block grant.
The gentleman's governor, Governor Tommy Thompson, wrote a stinging
letter yesterday with nine other governors calling that deduction, $10
billion out of the TANF block grant, a breach of the agreement that the
Governors made with the Federal Government when they signed off on
welfare reform. He and Governor Tom Ridge and Governor Tom Carper and
Governor John Engler, 10 governors altogether, have written opposition
to that in a stinging letter. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin correct
this problem?
Now just a minute ago, another point, the House voted overwhelmingly
to denounce the President of the United States for including user fees
of various kinds in his budget. As a matter of fact, if my colleagues
read the Kasich budget closely, they will find that the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has seven new user fees in his budget. These user
fees altogether cost $11 billion. Here is a list of them. I will let my
colleague look at them, $11 billion in user fees.
In light of the resolution we just adopted, in light of the motion to
recommit, the resolution that we just defeated, does the gentleman
include these fees in his budget also, or does he plan to exclude those
fees since the House has overwhelmingly said it disapproves of them?
Another point: The Kasich budget cuts energy. It is hard to tell
where those cuts are coming from. He wants to abolish the Energy
Department. But one of the things he wants to do, according to the May
12 report, is sell at least three power marketing administrations:
Southwest and Southeast. And these power marketing administrations have
a one-time return to the government of about $3 billion.
Since the gentleman is seeking an additional $50 billion in cuts,
does he want to sell not just three power marketing administrations but
five or six or all of them? Does he want to sell Bonneville? TVA?
The Kasich resolution also cuts law enforcement, incredibly cuts law
enforcement. Here we are seeing a reduction in violent crime
persistently over the last 3 to 4 years, and the Kasich budget would
cut law enforcement by $8 billion. This would whack the FBI; it would
whack the Drug Enforcement Administration. It would mean the end of
community policing, a very popular

[[Page H4196]]

program that has put 80,000 police on the streets of America.
Crimes rates are coming down. Does my colleague want to pull a bunch
on crime? Is he going to take $8 billion out of the crime program?
Medicaid. Last year one of the greatest things we did in the balanced
budget agreement was balance the budget but show that we could still
promote a few priorities, and one of those priorities was children's
health care. We created the children's health insurance plan at a cost
of about $16 billion.
But the Kasich budget comes along and whacks Medicaid by $12 billion,
whacks the health account by that amount. Does that mean we are not
going to have a children's health insurance plan? Does the gentleman
correct that? Does he provide for children's health insurance? Does the
gentleman also want the acute care under Medicaid to be block granted,
as Mr. Kasich would, or has he corrected that in his resolution?
There is a gaping hole, in addition, in the Kasich resolution, a
black hole, because he does not specify where the increases in the
highway spending bill which this House and the Senate have already
enacted $48.8 billion in budget authority, $23.3 billion in outlays
over the next 5 years. We do not know how that is going to be
accommodated. What gets bumped? Displaced? Does the gentleman's
resolution clarify this black hole or does he only deepen it? In his
zest to go for a $50 billion tax cut, do we now have a $75 billion
black hole instead of a $25 billion black hole?
And what about cuts in the environment? That was a protected
priority. We listed the amount of money we were spending on environment
each year in the balanced budget agreement. Mr. Kasich cuts the
environment and natural resources by $4.6 billion. Does the gentleman
restore that, or do we also take that out?
And what about education? That was a protected priority. The
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) would cut education and training,
would cut education by $5 billion. One of the truly cockamamie ideas,
if my colleagues will, in this May 12 document was the notion of taking
title I, one of the most successful programs we have got, a program
which takes 95 percent of its money and puts it in the classroom, a
program that helps individual kids keep pace with other kids in their
peer group, would take that program and convert it from a school grant
to a student grant, voucherize the title I program. Would the gentleman
do that, or does he correct that particular deficiency?
And basically what I would like to know, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich) would in effect add about 6 percent of additional cuts to
discretionary spending, nondefense discretionary spending, meaning that
overall it would be cut by about 18 percent by the year 2003. Since the
gentleman is going for an additional $50 billion in tax cuts, will that
be a 30 percent cut in discretionary spending? A 35 percent cut in
discretionary spending? Or has the gentleman somehow figured out a way
to mitigate cuts that I do not believe will ever be made?
So the bottom line in my request to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Neumann) is does his resolution improve or correct these problems,
these discrepancies, in the Kasich resolution, or does he worsen them?
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond
briefly.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) leveled 8 attacks
against the Kasich budget and somehow implied they are about the
Neumann budget. First of all, they are not. Let me respond to all
eight:
False, false, false, false, false, false, false and false.
And let me respond specifically to the first one as it goes to
veterans. The Kasich plan, as written, has $6.5 billion more for
veterans benefits in the spending category than what was called for in
last year's budget agreement that passed through the House and was
signed into law.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues believe
their constituents are overtaxed, then they ought to vote for this
budget. This budget is the only one that we will debate that puts
taxpayers first and stops wasting their money in Washington.
Each year the average American works until May of each year just to
pay their taxes. If we add State, local and Federal taxes together, and
the average family of four pays almost 40 percent of their income in
taxes, that is more than we pay for food, clothing and housing
combined.
The American people deserve to have that corrected, and this budget
does that.
This conservative action team budget will return to the American
people more than $150 billion in their tax money providing across-the-
board tax relief, eliminating the marriage penalty, eliminating the
estate or death tax and restoring a 12-month holding period on capital
gains. The American people need real reform from the crushing burden of
taxes, and this budget provides it.
Now we have been talking about defense. This is the only budget that
increases our Nation's defense spending by $56 billion in order to just
keep up with inflation. No other budget does it.
Recent events in India and Pakistan remind us what history has taught
us. Americans cannot ensure economic security for our families unless
we have real security in our defense of the Nation. In order to provide
security we have got to invest in our Nation's defense. A strong
defense is the only way America can remain the No. 1 leader in the
world, and this budget is the only one that just barely maintains the
defense at just inflation level. It is our duty, in fact it is our
primary function, I believe, in this Congress to ensure the security of
these United States. Let us do it. It is imperative to our survival.
This budget plan returns the most money to hard-working American
families, helps preserve the Social Security and shores up our national
defense.
As my colleagues know, Americans want, need and deserve tax relief.
This is an all American budget and deserves my colleagues' votes.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Neumann CAT
budget and the Kasich Republican budget and in support of the
bipartisan Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which is incorporated in the
Spratt substitute.
Last year we worked together, Democrats and Republicans. We produced
a balanced budget and a surplus this year, the growth in our economy.
Since 1993 we brought the deficits down from $300 billion to now we
have a $40 billion plus surplus.
The Republican Kasich budget is a partisan blowup of that agreement.
It would return us to large deficits and/or irresponsible, extreme
budget cuts.
My Republican friends claim this is just a 1 percent cut in the
budget, yet when we look at what they are trying to fund, the hundred
billion dollars tax cut, the transportation bill that has already been
passed, other spending that the Republicans would increase and the fact
that 2 out of every $3 in the Federal budget are exempt from any of
these cuts, then most programs are looking at cuts of up to 30 percent
and higher. We do not have to guess about that. We have Mr. Kasich's
list, which shows us how we need to cut the budget in order to achieve
the Kasich budget.
Let me just give my colleagues a sampling of some of the cuts that
would be required:
Eliminate the Department of Commerce, and yet at this time when we
are trying to increase U.S. products in foreign markets; eliminate the
Department of Energy when we are trying to become more energy self-
sufficient, and some of us still remember the gasoline lines;
jeopardize title I funding for our disabled children, our most
vulnerable in our population; cut the Environmental Protection Agency
by 15 percent. These are on Mr. Kasich's list. It is not a 1 percent
cut.
The welfare-to-work program is jeopardized. Two years ago we
successfully worked a partnership with our States and returned the
administration of welfare to our States in welfare-to-work, in
partnership with the Federal

[[Page H4197]]

Government helping provide the dollars so people could get off of
welfare to work. This budget reneges on that commitment. It is welfare
to nowhere if this budget became law.
To our veterans: Look at the budget document. They take $10 billion
out and they do not fund it. We are not meeting our commitments to our
veterans today. We should be doing more, not less. The Kasich budget
would take $10 billion more unaccountable.
The elimination of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We have
already had that battle here. It has not been agreed to, but yet it is
on the Kasich list.
Cops on the beat. I have Democrat and Republican county execs in the
Baltimore area applauding our efforts to put more cops on the beat. The
Kasich budget would decimate that program, a $6 billion cut in law
enforcement, jeopardizing the progress that we have already made in
this area.
And the list goes on and on.
This is not a 1 percent cut. If the budget became law, it would
destroy many of the programs that are so important. We would be
returning to Republican extremism that led to the shutdown of our
government.

{time} 1130

Do not take my word for it. We have the comments of the Republican
leaders in the other body. Chairman Domenici said the budget would make
a mockery of the process. Chairman Stevens said Congress could not
function under the plan. These are our Republican leaders in the other
body.
Fortunately, we have an alternative. We have the Spratt substitute. I
urge my colleagues to vote for the Spratt substitute.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, since my colleagues from the other side seem to have
aimed their attacks against the Kasich budget, rather than against our
plan, I assume that means they are basically in support of our plan.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to distinguished gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, any way they want to try to cook it, they
can cook it. But the fact is, think about this for a second, Federal
spending is going to go from $7.8 trillion over the last five years to
$9.1 trillion over the next five years, and we are arguing that we
ought to be able to find a penny out of a dollar from this government.
The American family had a chance to vote on whether the Federal
Government can live with $9 trillion, rather than $9.1 trillion. We
could help the families to get more, and not cave in to the Washington
culture, and not cave in to all the special interest groups that want
to keep taking from families.
Then, you know, you actually have to vote against mine. And I am not
surprised that the people who for many years have supported running
America from the top down, taking more and more money from families to
give to government, would oppose this. But it is patently absurd when
you even watch the news at night, ``The Fleecing of America,'' to think
that we could not squeeze one penny out of a dollar out of this
inefficient government.
Let me further say to my colleague who just spoke and some of them
who spoke, the President has a budget that increases taxes by $130
billion and increases spending by $150 billion, and they love that
plan. They love it, because when the President's man came up to the
Committee on the Budget, they supported him.
The fact is, if you think that this biggest, most bloated institution
on the face of the earth can save one penny on a dollar and live with
only $9 trillion in spending over the next five years, so we can take
those savings and help the family and eliminate the marriage penalty,
vote for my resolution. If you cannot, frankly, you are living in the
past.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
(Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, we have had a great deal of rhetoric this
year about the optimistic surplus forecasts for the Federal budget. It
is truly a great day if we can say that there is a surplus. But the
truth of the matter is that we do not have a surplus, we still have a
deficit; we are still in an era of deficit spending.
Why is this? The chart that is right to my right here indicates what
is happening. The red line shows the surplus in the Social Security
trust account each year. It continues to grow because the baby-boom
generation is paying in record amounts for Social Security.
At the same time, that lower line shows the rhetoric, the expectation
that we actually have some sort of a surplus in the budget, down here,
as much as $4, $5, $8 billion.
The truth of the matter is, this line shows what is actually
happening. That is the deficit that we are running.
What does this mean? It means that the attractive, the appealing, and
to a certain extent the deceptive promises that we can have new
programs, that we can cut taxes, that this will be painless, that
somehow the political system will accept these sacrifices that are
necessary to achieve these ends, all of this is illusive.
We have worked through the political process here in Congress. We
know what the constraints are. We know what our colleagues will accept.
Some say we will cut defense; others say we will cut agriculture;
others say we will cut education; some say we will just cut waste,
fraud and abuse.
But the fact of the matter is, we have to live with the political
reality that exists in this Nation, and the fact of the matter is that
if we are going to stop deficit spending, if we are going to stop
relying on the Social Security Trust Fund to finance other programs of
the Federal Government, we are going to have to make some very, very
tough decisions.
We are going to have to decide, is it more important to have tax
cuts, which all of us want, now, or to defer the gratification? We are
going to have to decide, are we going to expand and inaugurate new
programs, which almost all of us would like to have, or are we going to
defer the gratification?
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that what we need to do is face up to the
hard, cold reality that exists. We are still under these budgets
borrowing from Social Security, and we are not addressing the very
important task of actually bringing our budget into balance.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 3\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on National Security.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Neumann substitute,
mainly because it is the only budget we are considering today which
increases defense spending. Really, it does not increase defense
spending; it just barely keeps up with inflation. I want to repeat
that. It barely keeps up with inflation. We need more than that.
We are here debating all these various budget proposals, discussing
cutting things and increasing things and all the rest, and the very top
priority of our government, any Federal Government, protecting our
people, the security of our Nation, is the only thing that is left out.
We have our priorities mixed up.
Let me remind Members of something. If you are not aware of it,
people need to be reminded: We are at this very minute, not tomorrow,
not in the future, at this very minute we are faced with devastating
threats from all over this world, and we are unprepared to defend
against these threats which threaten our people, our constituents, our
troops stationed throughout the world, our allies all over the world.
At this very minute we are faced with these threats.
We are faced with threats from China, ICBM's, intercontinental
ballistic missiles, with nuclear warheads. We cannot defend against one
of them. Even one launched accidentally from somewhere in the world, we
cannot defend against it. It would destroy millions of lives in this
country and puts the very survival of our Nation at risk, and we cannot
defend against it.

[[Page H4198]]

In this day and time we have the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction throughout the world. They can be put together in
laboratories in inexpensive and low-tech ways. They can be used as
warheads on short range missiles or cruise missiles. Cruise missiles
can be launched from various platforms, bringing everyone within range
of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, bacteriological
weapons. Can you imagine what it is like to defend against these? We do
not have a defense against them.
Can you conceive of what these things mean to the lives of our people
and the very survival of our nation?
Can you conceive of losing 1-3 million people in Washington, DC if
200 pounds of anthrax is released in the air above us?
We have cut our military too much--this is already the 14th
consecutive year of budget deductions. Spending for defense has been
cut 33%--all other spending, however, has increased.
We have done to our own military what no foreign power has been able
to do--tear down the greatest defense of freedom to the extent that it
cannot properly defend this country.
I will say this, and I mean what I am saying, and I want people to
listen to it: The people who put this Kasich budget together that puts
our country at risk are guilty of dereliction of duty.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget claims to cut $100
billion below last year, and this amendment would add $50 billion to
it. Yet I have in my hand a sheet of requests from Members to the
Committee on Appropriations asking us to add 7,000 items totaling $353
billion above the President's request.
In energy and water, for instance, there are at least 120 Members of
the Republican Caucus who have written us asking us for spending above
the President's request. In transportation, at least 40 Members on that
side of the aisle are asking us to spend money above the President's
request. Yet in the generic, they pretend they are going to cut $100
billion here today.
I have just one question, Mr. Chairman. Is that kind of hypocrisy
learned, or does it come naturally?
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I come here to support the Conservative
Action Team's budget. Let me say, first of all, there are perhaps three
reasons why all Members should consider it. First of all, it has the
lowest increase relative to inflation of all the budgets. Second of
all, for those folks who want higher defense spending, this budget has
it. The third reason is it has a lockbox, a lockbox dealing with the
Social Security Trust Fund. As I understand it, it is the only one that
has the lockbox, which means any savings in this budget are going right
back to the Social Security Trust Fund.
Of course, lastly, for those of us concerned about user fees and
taxes, this budget has the most amount of reduction in user fees and
taxes. For all of those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the
Conservative Action Team.
We have had a lot of rhetoric on this side, but this budget in fact
brings it down home. So you have less taxes, higher defense spending,
and, at the same time, a lockbox for Social Security.
Mr. Chairman, the debt is going up in this country. Every year the
debt is going up. Yet we talk about a balanced budget. How can the debt
go up if we are balancing the budget? Because we are not. We are taking
funds from the Social Security Trust Fund, and that is not right. A
lockbox and the Conservative Action Team will stop that.
Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment my colleague from Ohio, Chairman
Kasich, for his tremendous efforts in bringing his FY '99 budget to the
floor today.
While I agree with him that we need to continue placing restraints on
spending and provide additional tax relief, I find that the alternative
offered by Representatives Neumann, McIntosh, and Johnson, the
conservative action team (CAT substitute) is a better way to achieve
these goals.
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.''
The CAT's budget continues to honor our pledge to reduce Government
spending without increasing taxes.
This budget alternative chooses family over big Government spending
programs.
If Government were forced to pay its bills in the same manner as the
citizens who finance it, the bill collectors would be knocking down our
doors.
The CAT's budget offers us the opportunity to continue what we
started last year by holding down spending and cutting taxes. Together,
these two components will ensure that our Nation's economy will
continue to experience the growth it is currently enjoying well into
the next century.
There is one area of the budget that has me particularly perplexed.
That is the way in which we use our Social Security trust fund to pay
for other programs. The CAT's substitute doesn't just offer rhetoric
when it comes to saving the Social Security trust fund, it provides the
necessary safeguards to achieve that goal.
The trust fund is projected to be running a surplus of $100 billion
dollars for FY '99, I would hope that we will stop using this fund to
mask our Nation's deficit. Instead, let's use a portion of the surplus
to replenish the money borrowed from the Social Security trust fund and
as the CAT's budget does, let's create a Social Security ``lock box''
that would prevent any future raiding of the fund.
The Social Security trust fund's surplus shouldn't be used to fund
other programs. And it should not be used to mask our Nation's debt.
Mr. Chairman, I am firmly convinced that our Nation's future is tied
to the restoration of traditional family values. The Neumann budget
addresses this by standing up for human life, increasing the role of
the family in education, by cutting taxes, and by increasing our
defense budget to keep up with inflation.
There is one additional area that I would like to mention. I want to
echo Chairman Kasich's remarks when he stated at the Budget Committee
markup that he hoped the appropriators could give the NIH an even
bigger boost than the budget recommended. I want to thank him and I
appreciate all the excellent efforts of the House Budget Committee
members to increase the NIH funding. I respectfully urge them to recede
to the Senate Budget resolution on NIH funding for FY '99 when they go
to conference. Only progress through health research will truly reduce
the costs of programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention my commitment to ensuring that
our Nation's veterans also receive the necessary funding so that we
fulfill the pledge we made to them.
To sum it up, the Neumann budget taxes less, spends less, places
restraints on Government growth, provides for a strong defense,
restores family values, and dedicates the surpluses to reducing taxes,
preserving Social Security and repaying the debt.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, we keep the surplus
intact to save Social Security, and we do not have $11 billion in user
fees, as the Kasich resolution does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Neumann amendment and to the Kasich budget resolution. We would like to
talk about the budget resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kasich).
As has been pointed out already today, without any disagreement to
the contrary, there is approximately $25 billion in the Kasich budget
that is unaccounted for because it has already been spent to pay for
the transportation bill. This is the same grave omission that caused
many Democrats and Republicans to vote against the transportation bill
when it left the House, because it threatened to spend the surplus.
That is the grave sin we commit here today. The budget resolution
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) takes us down the road
of spending the surplus.
Now, the argument has been made this amounts to a 1 percent cut in
spending. There has also been an admission that we are going to spare
defense and Medicare. There has been absolutely no response to the very
specific points made about how deep the cuts will have to be made in
Medicaid, education and other important core functions because of the
way the budget resolution has been written.
This is not a day for speeches. This is our day to put a very
detailed plan on the floor of the House, and those details are not
forthcoming. There is a

[[Page H4199]]

reason why Republican and Democratic governors are opposing this budget
resolution, because those details are missing and because the best work
we do here when we are balancing the budget is working with the States.
We are ignoring them.

{time} 1145

One of the important lessons we should have learned from 1995 is that
we are not just talking about numbers here today. We are talking about
people's lives, and we are failing to address the impacts these cuts
could have on the lives of the people we represent at home.
One thing is perfectly clear, whether this budget resolution passes
or not, and that is, it is going to leave us rudderless. We have chosen
not to work with the Senate, not to work with the President. As a
result, this budget resolution becomes irrelevant.
What is the price we are going to pay for that? The price we are
going to pay is, as the pressure begins to rise to spend money and to
cut taxes, we are going to do it without regard to protecting the
surplus which we should be using to pay off this massive Federal debt
and prepare Social Security for the future. We have an opportunity to
protect that surplus. We are going to blow it, and that is why we need
to defeat the budget resolution.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the Chair, please, the
remaining time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Neumann) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the
Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, for those of us who recognize the
constitutional responsibility of the Congress, to protect ourselves
against things like India's nuclear capability, Pakistan's nuclear
capability, China's ability, not only with nuclear but the ability to
deliver a nuclear weapon or weapon of mass destruction, we say to them
today, and they will be hearing from most of us who have that specific
responsibility, the Neumann substitute is the only proposal before us
today that even helps us keep our head level with the water. It does
not get us out of the water where we ought to be.
Just yesterday my subcommittee completed the markup on the defense
appropriations committee. As we went through that markup, I was
convinced more and more of this one thought, that when we talk about
national defense, if we have enough national defense, if we have what
we need and do not have to use it, that is good. That is deterrence.
But if we do not have enough, that is bad. That is disaster.
I can tell my colleagues that the President's budget does not provide
enough, and the only measure before us today is the Neumann substitute
because it does give us enough to at least try to keep level with
inflation.
We cannot do more with less. I do not care how good we are, we cannot
do more with less. We have had more deployments in the last 5 years,
other than war, than any other President. It has cost us a lot of
money. We are wearing out our troops. We are wearing out our equipment.
We are cutting down the size of the force but extending their
deployments more and more. We just cannot continue to do more with
less.
The Neumann substitute gives us the opportunity to have more, to do
more things that we need to do. In 2 minutes it is difficult to talk
about this entire problem. Today, the size of our active duty force has
been cut by 36 percent in the last 10 years. Army overseas deployments
are up 300 percent from the rates that we sustained during the Cold
War.
For the Navy today, on any given day 57 percent of our ships are at
sea on deployment. In 1992 the figure was only 37 percent. The list
goes on and on.
If we have enough, that is good. If we do not have enough, that is
disaster.
Mr. Chairman, this member of Congress takes a back seat to no one
when it comes to casting the tough votes to balance our federal budget
and reduce the size of our federal government. However, this member of
Congress also knows that each and every member of this House takes an
oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
One of the principle responsibilities given Congress under our
Constitution is to provide for our common defense, to raise and support
armies and to maintain a navy. Today I am here to tell you that we are
on the verge of abrogating this Constitutional responsibility because
we are on the verge of returning to a hollow military.
As the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on National
Security, I visit on a regular basis with officers and enlisted
personnel from all branches of the service. From four star flag
officers to new recruits, there is widespread concern that we are
overextending our troops and wearing out our equipment to the point
that our readiness could soon be compromised.
For 13 years in a row, our national security budget has declined in
terms of the what we can buy for each dollar we spend. During that
time, real spending on our national security has declined by 40
percent.
The budget President Clinton has sent Congress for our national
security in Fiscal Year 1999, which is reflected in the budget
resolution reported to this House by the Budget Committee, provides for
the lowest level of spending in constant dollars in more than 40 years.
And over the next five years, the President's budget reduces spending
on our national security by $54 billion.
Already there are 700,000 fewer troops in the field, in the air, and
at sea than there were 10 years ago. This is a 36 percent cut in our
active duty forces.
Not only are the number of uniformed personnel falling, but so is
their morale. Every service chief tells us that they are finding it
difficult to retain the best and brightest of our officers and enlisted
men and women. The reasons are many. Military pay is not keeping pace
with pay in the private sector and as a result I am ashamed to say that
we have members of our all volunteer force who need food stamps to try
and make ends meet for their families. Base housing is aging to the
point where some is virtually uninhabitable.
And we are asking our troops, during a time of peace, to deploy more
often and for longer periods of time than at any other peaceful period
in our nation's history. Since taking office in 1992, President Clinton
has sent our troops on more overseas deployments than any other
president. Many of these deployment are for reasons of questionable
national importance.
Army overseas deployments are up 300 percent from those rates
sustained during the Cold War. This year, on any given day one of every
three Army soldiers is deployed abroad.
For the Navy today, on any given day 57 percent of its ships are at
sea. This is 25 percent higher than 1992.
For the Air Force, the number of Air Force personnel deployed away
from home today is four times higher than in 1989--yet the Air Force is
\1/3\ smaller.
For too many years now, we have been asking our men and women in
uniform to do more with less. Well guess what--the Secretary of Defense
estimates the President's five year budget proposal, which further
shrinks our nation's defense, will require a reduction in end strength
of 54,000 active duty personnel and 49,000 reservists. So while this
President continues to deploy our troops on more missions around the
world, he continues to shrink the size of our forces, and jeopardizes
our overall readiness.
Is it any wonder that pilot retention in the Air Force is down
significantly. Just a few years ago, the re-enlistment rate for pilots
was 75 percent. Today it is 36 percent, well below the Air Force's
target of 58 percent.
Both the Navy and Air Force tell me that they are well below their
reenlistment targets for first term sailors and airmen. The Air Force
is 18 percent below its re-enlistment goal and the Navy 7 percent. The
Navy Times newspaper recently reported that 75 percent of the sailors
surveyed plan on leaving the service as early as possible.
Not only are we wearing out our troops and their families, but we are
wearing out our equipment. Mission capable rates for our Air Force and
Navy aircraft have fallen every year since 1991. There are increasing
shortages of spare parts and cannibalization of existing aircraft is on
the rise. Remember the hanger queens of the Carter Administration? Well
they're back in the Clinton Administration and the situation will only
become worse.
Last year my committee had to add $600 million to the President's
budget to pay for the additional need for spare parts. Still, the
Commander in Chief for the Pacific region tells me cannibalization
rates have doubled in just the past two years.
Stop to consider tat our principal Air Force fighter aircraft were
designed in the early 1970's. The President's budget calls for the
procurement of only two fighters this year.

[[Page H4200]]

This would be the lowest number in the history of the Air Force.
Stop to consider that the average age of the Army's medium truck
fleet is 25 years old. More than half of those trucks qualify for
antique plates. Under the President's budget, this fleet will not be
replaced for another 30 years.
Stop to consider that under the President's budget, the Navy proposes
to build only six new ships next year. This is far below the 10 ships
per year that would be required to sustain the current fleet of 326
ships.
Since Desert Storm, we have cut our active-duty Army from 18
divisions to 10, our combat tactical aircraft by 40 percent, our bomber
fleet by 59 percent, and our combat ships by 35 percent.
Don't just take my word for it. Listen to our service chiefs.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps told me he is $500 million, or
half a billion dollars, short of what he needs in the 1999 budget for
equipment procurement alone. He said the cumulative effect of year
after year of these shortages will be devastating to the Corps.
The Chief of Staff of the Army told me just a few weeks ago that
under the current budget scenarios the Army could go under.
A frustrated Navy Commander told a newspaper reporter that his F-14
squadron was a hazard to operations because the unit has only averaged
two mission capable aircraft instead of the usual 14.
And Secretary Cohen, who is President Clinton's top civilian adviser
on national defense matters, just testified before Congress saying with
regard to readiness that ``We are starting to see signs of some
erosion, certainly on the edges of things.''
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, my wife Beverly and I had the honor
of participating in commissioning ceremonies for U.S.S. Pearl Harbor
(LSD 52). More than 1,500 Pearl Harbor survivors came from all over the
nation to be a part of these ceremonies.
As I told all those veterans gathered there in San Diego, as well as
the first crew to bring U.S.S. Pearl Harbor to life, we can never repay
our debt of gratitude to those who have served our nation in uniform
and to those who have paid the ultimate price. We can however, dedicate
ourselves to ensuring that in their honor and memory we do all within
our power as members of Congress to maintain the strongest, most ready
national defense.
Mr. Speaker, I close with this thought. When dealing with national
defense, to have it and not need it is good. That is deterrence. But to
need it and not have it is a disaster.
Every one of us in this Congress today should decide it's time to
stop the decline in our commitment to a strong national defense and
begin the steady progress to modernize our force, boost the morale of
our troops, and prepare for whatever threat may present itself to our
nation and our national interests in the coming century. That is our
sworn Constitutional responsibility.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I thank our leader who is leading this
debate for us.
Mr. Chairman, two years ago I watched this kind of debate on my
television set at home in Michigan. Last night, as I went home and
watched the very end of the debate again on my television in my little
apartment, I had deja vu all over again, as they say.
What I saw was a replay of the 104th Congress talking about the
potential for dramatic cuts and threats to Medicare, education, the
environment, and a focus on providing tax breaks for the wealthy and
trying and essentially to blow up a balanced budget agreement that we
came to in historic fashion just a year ago. It was extremely
disheartening.
My constituents asked me to come here during this session to do away
with that. They do not want the days of possible government shutdowns
or threats to those things that affect their lives every day.
Last year we passed a historic balanced budget agreement. I rise
today to support that by rejecting the Neumann substitute, the Kasich
budget, and supporting the Spratt budget that allows us to continue the
balanced budget that we agreed to in a bipartisan way, truly protect
Social Security, and stand up for those things that affect our families
every day.
We need to focus on those priorities that people care about in the
context of balancing the budget. I can assure my colleagues that the
only way we truly effect Social Security protection and preserve it is
through the Spratt budget.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and a ``yes''
vote on the Spratt amendment.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of
the Subcommittee on Military Procurement.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me add my strong support to that of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spence), and on behalf, I think, of the men and women who
wear the uniform of the United States in all the services, for the
Neumann budget.
We asked the service leaders to tell us what they needed, what they
were short this last year. They were pretty gutsy. Even though their
commander in chief, I am sure, was not happy, they came forward and
said, ``This is the list of things that we need,'' and they gave us a
list of things like ammunition, spare parts, components for systems
that cannot fly now. All of those things added up to $58 billion.
The Neumann substitute stops the slight in national defense. It does
not give us a lot of things, no new systems, but at least allows us to
have enough ammunition so we can carry out the two-war scenario.
If we really care about the mothers and fathers of this country, the
best service we can give to them is to make sure that their youngsters
come home alive in the time of a conflict. The Neumann substitute is
the only vehicle we have here that keeps, as the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) said, the head of our military above the water. Please vote
for the Nuemann substitute.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 40 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, these are some mighty strange cats. They
offer the opportunity to fatten up the fat cats, and they offer a
little cat chow for everybody else. They call it conservative, but when
it comes to conserving our resources and seeing that every penny of the
budget surplus that was achieved this year in historic terms is
allocated to reducing the debt and protecting Social Security, they say
no way.
They do not give our public schools very much to meow about either,
because they really do not believe in any Federal commitment to public
education. What a change it was to go from this Congress home to Texas
and to see the enthusiasm for learning of young people, the
determination of our professional educators, and the involvement of
parents to see their young people graduate this spring. How incredibly
contradictory at the very time we are celebrating learning and the
struggle of American families that these Republicans in one budget
called one thing and one called another do the same thing, and that is,
to rip the heart out of American public education.
I had a blue ribbon school winner, the kind of principal who is there
turning a gang-infested area around into a success story for young
people. I asked her about this Kasich budget to rip out Title I and in
her words, she said ``We would die without those Federal funds.'' That
is what is at stake here, not just some rhetoric about who can be more
conservative than someone else.
In my community we are turning the corner on crime. It has not hurt a
bit to have 200 new officers on our streets to help deal with the
problem of juvenile violence. These folks say forget that, we want to
cut what is there now, not help to do more about juvenile violence.
They say they can do it with just a penny across the board. Well,
they could not find one penny, one $400 hammer out of the Defense
Department bureaucracy to cut. Not a penny do they cut there. They say
they have got to have more money in order to succeed.
Mr. Chairman, they say there is more than one way to skin a cat, but
I maintain that, under either of these Republican budgets, it is only
the American people that are going to get skinned.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a point that when the cats
are making their case, they are never going to dog it.
Then I would like to correct a couple of the minor misstatements. The
budget that we are currently considering that I have presented here
puts more

[[Page H4201]]

money aside for Social Security than any other budget that has been
considered in Washington, D.C. this year. It is offensive for anyone to
get on this floor and somehow say this budget is not the best budget
for Social Security, because anybody who looks at the numbers will
realize that there is more money for Social Security in this budget
than anything else under consideration here.
Education. Education has got inflationary increases in spending. We
do not increase the role of Federal Government; we leave that to the
parents, families and communities.
Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to my good
friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all say I am disheartened
by what I just heard. The misstatement of fact is inappropriate for
this body.
Should the size of this government grow? That is the question we need
to ask. Should this government get bigger? There is only one budget
that says no, we will grow it right with inflation and not let it get
bigger, and that is this budget.
Is there any budget that truly puts teeth in protecting Social
Security? There is only one. It is Nuemann. We put it in negotiable
bonds. It is not paper anymore. It is truly bonds.
Do we really save Social Security? You bet. Is the money that goes
into the trust fund really put into something that matters, not just
more paperwork that we can flip around with the transportation bill and
use?
We heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) talk about education.
This budget, the Neumann budget, sends the money to the classrooms. It
sends 95 percent of the education dollars to the local classrooms and
lets them do it: the teachers, the principals, the local school board.
So that is another reason that it is better than any proposal.
Number five, it cuts taxes. You bet. It eliminates the marriage
penalty. It expands the 15 percent tax bracket, which happens to be
where most people are in this country. It eliminates the death tax on
the farmers and the ranchers and those that can least afford to pay it.
Finally, yes, it reduces the holding period on capital gains, because
for once we now can prove that lowering that actually generates more
revenue for the country.
Finally, it dedicates 50 percent of everything that comes in above
excess revenues for reduction in the debt.
It is unfortunate that we hear rhetoric that does not match the
facts. It is unfortunate that this body is abused in that manner. I am
sorry that we have to hear that. But if the American public does not
want this government to grow any larger, then they should, in fact,
insist on the Neumann budget. It does what the American people ask.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad budget. It is a bad
amendment to a bad budget. We Democrats are grateful that our
Republican colleagues would bring up something like this, because it
makes clear the differences between the parties: cuts in education,
cuts for senior citizens, cuts in health, cuts for the environment,
cuts for the protection of natural resources, cuts for things that are
important to the little people of this country. That is what is in the
budget that comes from over here, and that is what is in the
substitute.
It is only 51 days that we are late bringing this up. I can
understand my Republican colleagues were probably ashamed to put this
kind of travesty before this body. It is, however, something which
makes very clear the difference between the two parties. It shows where
our Republican friends are coming from.
They are not interested in maintaining the agreement which we had
last time on the budget, which has helped give us perhaps the greatest
level of prosperity which we have had. They are not interested in
preserving programs which are helpful and of value to the little people
of this country. They want to cut the things which are investments in
the future of this country, like education, protection of our natural
resources, and things of this kind.
We have not worked very hard this session. I think, perhaps, given
the way this budget reflects the behavior of my Republican colleagues,
that is probably a very good thing.
There are a lot of things that we could be doing which would be
helping the people. We could deal with the managed care problem. We
could address the problem in Superfund. But, no, we are out here today
cutting programs which are important to the people.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

{time} 1200

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, one fact is very clear today. Two out of three are not
bad. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) offers a budget
alternative that increases spending and increases taxes. The gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich)
offer budgets which spend less and tax less. Clearly the budget of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) is the budget which is best for
Social Security.
Mr. Chairman, let us remember what the number one goal of this year
should be. That is to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, because the
most fundamental question we should be answering is, is it right, is it
fair, that 21 million married working couples pay on the average $1,400
more just because they are married? That is wrong. The Neumann budget
and the Kasich budget make their centerpiece the elimination of the
marriage tax penalty.
We have two opportunities out of three votes today to eliminate the
marriage tax penalty. Let us vote aye on Neumann, let us vote aye on
Kasich. Mr. Chairman, they both deserve bipartisan support.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I am not here to speak about the CATS'
meow. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. To placate the extremists, the
Republican leadership has brought to the floor a budget which is so
extreme that the Republican Senate Committee on the Budget chairman has
called it a mockery. Republican Governors say that this Republican
budget violates the agreements that were made with the States. The
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in the Senate says that
Congress cannot function with this Republican budget.
Mr. Chairman, budgets are not just about numbers, budgets are about
values. Budgets are about priorities, and they are about who we are as
a Nation.
Let us take a look at the Republican values, as illustrated in the
Kasich budget, the Republican budget. The budget fails to preserve
Social Security. It would cut health services to seniors, to pregnant
women and children who cannot afford health insurance. It would cut an
additional $10 billion out of veterans' health care services, and it
shortchanges our future by killing investments in child care and in
education. I ask the Members, are these the kinds of values that we are
about in the United States of America?
This budget eliminates the investment in improving the quality of
early childhood education, to help children start school ready to
learn. It eliminates child care assistance to the working poor, so they
can leave welfare, go to work, and be able to know that their kids are
safe. I ask Americans, does this budget reflect their values?
It eliminates Title I funds to help our most disadvantaged children
catch up to their peers in school. Does this really reflect our values?
It eliminates funds to help teachers update their curriculum, to teach
our youngsters to the highest standards. It eliminates funds to
modernize schools, and to put computers in every classroom. I ask the
Members, does this budget reflect American values?
The budget eliminates funds to increase the number of qualified
teachers in the early grades. Mr. Chairman, this does not reflect our
values.
The Republican budget walks away from the needs of children, it walks

[[Page H4202]]

away from the needs of American families, it walks away from American
values. We ought to oppose it. The papers in the last few days have
characterized this as budget baloney, budget theatrics, budget mockery.
Let us defeat the Kasich budget. It is wrong for the values of the
United States of America.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to
my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. John Hostettler).
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Neumann
CATs budget, in that it maintains a commitment to our national defense.
The United States Constitution declares, ``We, the people of the United
States, in order to provide for the common defense, do ordain and
establish this Constitution.''
The Neumann CATs budget merely maintains defense spending at the rate
of inflation. It does not even increase defense spending, when we put
into account inflation. This budget does what liberal Democrat
Congresses have not done in the past. It merely maintains inflation.
If Members agree with the leader of that party who, in his formative
years, in a December 3, 1969 letter to a Colonel Holmes said that he
``loathes the military,'' Members will vote against the Neumann CATs
budget. If Members believe that we should maintain our commitment to
the military, if they love the men and women in uniform and they
believe that we should maintain the rate of inflation and they do not
loathe the United States military, I suggest Members vote for the
Neumann budget and support our men and women in uniform.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
(Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to nobody on my support for the
military. On military construction, we have had hundreds of calls for
add-ons to the military construction budget, but our allocation is so
low we are not able to do it. There were calls from Republicans and
Democrats.
We rewrite history around here pretty regularly. I remember when
Ronald Reagan was President, a group of us went up to Camp David and we
were talking about budgets. I said, Mr. President, what is going to
happen to us if the economy does not operate like you think and we get
down to the point where we have these tremendous deficits? God bless
his heart, he said, we will just have to face that when we get to it.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Charlie Stenholm) was there.
Our distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget, my good
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. John Kasich) and the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich), the Speaker, this morning, talked
about, and the gentleman with the belt last night, talking about we can
only cut one penny, one penny.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, that gentleman referred to was the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), my good friend.
Mr. HEFNER. He wears that big a belt?
Mr. NEUMANN. Nine feet.
Mr. HEFNER. He said we can cut one penny, but they do not cut 1
percent. We have two-thirds of the budget that is untouchable. Members
know that. We have been around here a long while.
The Speaker asked this morning if Members cannot find 1 percent, but
that is not 1 percent they are going to find. In 1993, and one of the
gentlemen last night, and I will not call names, he got up and said
that was a disaster, that the only thing that got this economy moving
again was when we elected the new Republicans. That is not true. In
1993, without one single Republican vote in the House or the Senate, we
passed a package that got this economy moving, with interest rates
down, low unemployment. Members can talk whatever they like about it,
but something made it happen. That is the only thing we did, and that
is what made it happen to make this possible for us to even have a
surplus to talk about.
But at that time, let me just quote what some of the folks in the
Republican Party said about that package that we passed. In fact, when
it passed, a woman that voted for it, they stood on that side and said,
``Bye-bye, bye-bye, you are going to lose because of that.'' So they go
out and spread the stuff that we had raised taxes on low-income people,
which we did not.
Mr. Chairman, we raised taxes on 2 percent of the wealthiest people
in this country, and Ronald Reagan said 50 percent of Social Security,
that was to be taxed. We raised that, but we also raised the threshold
of what people could make before there was a tax, so there was no tax
on working people.
Here is what some of the Republicans said when we passed that
package. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich) said, ``The tax
increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will
force people off of work and onto unemployment,'' and the deficit will
actually increase.
Our distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget said,
``We're going to find out whether we have higher deficits, we're going
to find out whether we have a slower economy, we're going to find out
what's going to happen to interest rates, and it's our bet that this is
a job killer.'' And the unemployment rate is lower than it has been in
decades.
Here is something else our chairman said. ``It's like a snake bite.
The venom is going to be injected into the body of this economy, in our
judgment, and it's going to spread throughout the body and it's going
to begin to kill the jobs that Americans now have.''
I maintain that the Republican budget will do exactly that.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to
my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
(Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Neumann
budget, because it sets the right priorities.
But before I begin my remarks, let me just comment on the mystifying
debate on this floor which continues to use the word cut, cut, cut,
cut. There is not a single cut in this budget. This budget grows
spending. It grows it from $1,705 billion in the first year to $1,894
billion in the last year. Over the last 5 years we have grown spending
by $7.8 trillion. In the next we are going to grow it by $8.9 trillion.
There is no cut.
This debate raises the fundamental question, should government grow
at 2 to 3 times the rate of the growth in salaries of the American
people? Because make no mistake about it, that is what that side wants.
Government has an insatiable appetite for more money and more spending,
and that is what they want.
What does that mean to the American people? For the last 8 years, the
average American has seen his or her salary go up 3.4 percent, a 3.4
percent increase in their compensation. But government, government has
grown at almost double that rate. Domestic discretionary spending in
1991 went up by 6.9 percent, in 1992 by 9.6 percent, in 1993 by 6.64
percent, in 1994 by 6.1 percent, in 1995 by 4.6 percent.
Over the period, while Americans have seen their wages go up only 3.4
percent, government has grown at double that rate, 5.2 percent in
domestic discretionary spending. But what has happened in mandatory
spending? Means-tested entitlements have grown at three times the rate
of the growth in the income of the average American family. Total
mandatory spending is growing at double the rate, 5.3 percent versus
3.4 percent.
This budget sets the right priorities for Americans. While defense
spending is declining, it makes up that. Defense spending has gone down
during this time period by 11.6 percent. We must set the right
priorities and protect defense spending, and reduce the rate of growth
in discretionary spending.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.

[[Page H4203]]

Mr. Chairman, as we continue to talk about the budget, and I have
listened intently, it seems to me that we have some strange priorities
in this country. I hear us talking about how well the economy is doing.
We are continuing to grow and expand, and then at the same time, I hear
us talk about taking away entitlement opportunities for the needy,
taking away programs for those who are not a part of the expanding
economy; talking about retrenching public housing.
Under this budget, there is a possibility that 1 million low-income
families could lose public housing vouchers and certificates over the
next 5 years. If this is the budget of priority for the American
people, then I certainly hope it can be realigned, changed, and
realtered. Let us come with a budget that helps all of the people of
America, as opposed to only those who are most affluent and at the top.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that budgets are not only
instruments and tools of management; but they are also indicators of
direction and priorities. If this is indeed the case, then I have some
grave concerns and reservations about the budget resolution which has
been put before us by the majority in this House.
At a time when we are experiencing vast economic expansion and
growth, the majority resolution seeks to place deep cuts in programs
designed to assist the needy and working class in this country. The
resolution cuts Medicare by $10.1 billion, and Medicaid--the program
that provides health care for the poor by $12 billion over five years.
In addition, the Republican resolution cuts funding for education and
child care, and eliminates direct federal funding to school districts
by repealing Title I grants and other non-defense discretionary
programs by $45 billion over a five year period.
The Republican budget turns its back on seniors, children and Social
Security, and focuses on cuts, and more cuts to those who need help the
most. While at the same time it rewards the rich and more affluent with
private retirement accounts at the expense of Social Security, and
provides $101 billion in new tax cuts. Under this proposal, 1 million
households could lose federal housing vouchers and certificates by year
2003.

The Democratic alternative on the other hand preserves Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Education. It invests in the future
of our children. The Democratic alternative is good for working
families, senior citizens, children, and for the average person. It
strengthens America. I urge that we oppose the Republican budget
resolution and support the democratic alternative. It is better for all
America.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 30 seconds to
my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, very briefly, each one of these bars represents how
much money has been spent by the Federal Government for each one of
these years, 1994 through 2003.
In 1994 we started out at $1.4 trillion. We are ending up in the
committee's budget at $1.9 trillion. What happens? I am going to draw a
line here. The budget of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Mark
Neumann) suggests that we stay with inflation, and we actually reduce
very slightly the spending over the next 5 years. The Democrat or the
Spratt budget actually suggests that we increase spending. It is
important to know that we have to live within inflation.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici has called it a mockery, and Senator
Stevens has asked us where will we get the $45 billion in discretionary
cuts. My Republican colleagues, many in the Committee on the Budget,
have all said these cuts are not desirable or attainable.
I say to my friends in Memphis, in Cummings and Winchester and
Goodland, and at Idlewilde Elementary who are graduating today, I
apologize for not being there, but I assure the Members my Republican
colleagues who raised this budget resolution issue last night, at 11:30
last night, is the reason I am not home.
With schools crumbling around our Nation, our Republican colleagues
and, I might add, even some of my Democratic colleagues are to blame as
well, but we have to point the finger where the finger ought to be
pointed. Republican friends of mine in the Congress, despite the fact
that a Democratic President balanced the budget, lowered interest
rates, lowered inflation, and lowered unemployment, instead of working
together to save Social Security, to preserve those initiatives, which
many of my colleagues, I look at the gentleman from California (Mr.
Duke Cunningham), who serves so ably, he will move on from this
Congress one day and benefit from Medicaid and Social Security. Let us
preserve that first.

{time} 1215

I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) who said that we
spend too much here in Washington on education, 95 percent of the
funding and policy decisions in education in America are made at the
local level. Let us do more at the Federal level to rebuild our
schools, hire teachers, develop after-school programs, and prepare the
next generation of Americans.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
(Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support a budget that
will provide America's families with $150 billion in tax cuts and also
take a big whack out of our national debt. I also rise today to support
a budget that will make national defense once again a national priority
by taking less of families' hard-earned income and paychecks, taking a
bite out of our national debt and strengthening our national defense.
The Neumann budget will strengthen our families, our economy, and our
Nation. I appeal to my colleagues to support this legislation because
America's families deserve nothing less.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support a budget that will provide
America's families with $150 billion in tax cuts and also take a big
whack out of the national debt. I also rise today to support a budget
that will make national defense, once again, a national priority. That
legislation is the substitute budget offered by my friend from
Wisconsin, Rep. Mark Neumann, and I urge my colleagues to support this
measure.
Mr. Chairman, last year, the average income for a family in which
both parents worked was $55,000 a year. Of that money, roughly half of
that family's income went to pay federal, state and local taxes. My
friends, how can we expect a family to take care of themselves and
their children when the government takes half of what they earn? It
just doesn't make any sense.
That's why I support the Neumann substitute budget, because it would
provide America's families with $150 billion in tax relief, so families
can keep more of their hard-earned paychecks. The Neumann budget would
also eliminate the so-called marriage penalty, which is basically a tax
increase couples must pay once they become married.
But that's not all. The Neumann budget realizes that we can't give
our kids a $5.5 trillion national debt and expect them to have a better
future. So it calls for 50 percent of any remaining budget surplus to
go towards reducing the national debt, so we can give our kids a clean
financial slate for the future.
The Neumann budget also seeks to increase defense spending by an
additional $56 billion over last year's budget. With threats to our
national security in Iraq and all across the world, we cannot afford to
be lax in the maintenance of our military. The Neumann budget gives our
troops the resources they need to be successful in any mission they
might undertake.
By taking less of families' hard-earned paychecks, taking a bite out
of the national debt and strengthening our national defense, the
Neumann budget will strengthen our families, our economy and our
nation. I appeal to my colleagues to support this legislation, because
the families of America deserve nothing less.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member, very much for yielding
me this time, and I rise to vigorously oppose this budget which
destroys our commitment to the families of America and the children of
America.

[[Page H4204]]

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
(Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to set this discussion in
proper perspective today. Recently one of the polling companies from
here in Washington, D.C., asked 2,000 American adults, ``Do you think
the United States Government should increase faster that the rate of
inflation, faster than the family budget; at the same rate as the
family budget; or slower than the family budget?'' It was a 90-to-3
answer. Ninety percent of Americans believe that the United States
Government should not increase faster than the family budget or faster
than the rate of inflation.
So we decided we were going to put together a proposal that met the
wishes and the demands of the American people. This black line on this
chart that I have here shows inflation. That is how fast the family
budgets are going up across America.
The farthest column, that shows how fast the CAT's budget is
increasing spending out here in the government. And I would point out
that it is the only proposal that we are considering, the President's,
the Senate, the House, the Democrat alternative, it is the only
proposal that we are considering out here today that allows government
spending to go up at a slower rate than the rate of inflation.
Mr. Chairman, 90 percent of the American people believe that the
Federal Government should not increase its spending faster than the
family budget, and this is the only opportunity we have today to keep
that and to meet that wish.
The House budget, the Kasich budget, if we take Social Security out
of the picture, it also meets that. With Social Security in the
picture, it goes up slightly faster than the rate of inflation but it
is the second closest to meeting the wishes of the American people.
I have heard a lot of rhetoric about preserving Social Security.
Baloney. The only budget out here that puts more money aside for Social
Security is the budget we are about to vote on. The CAT's budget puts
$275 billion aside to preserve and protect Social Security.
I believe every senior citizen in the United States of America has a
right to get up tomorrow morning knowing that their Social Security is
safe and secure. So in the CAT's budget we put more money aside for
Social Security than any other budget being considered.
So let us cut through the rhetoric out here and let us get down to
the facts of what is actually being considered. The CAT's budget puts
aside $275 billion for Social Security; the House budget, $223 billion;
the Senate proposal, $149 billion; and the President's proposal just
under $100 billion.
So if Members are serious about preserving Social Security for our
senior citizens in this country, the CAT's budget is the right vote.
What about the tax burden on American workers? The tax burden is too
high. A generation ago 25 cents out of every dollar that workers earned
went to taxes. Today that number is 37 cents out of every dollar they
earned. Let us translate that into what it means. It means that
American workers have to take second and third jobs in order to pay
that extra tax burden from this government. That is wrong.
That is why the CAT's budget proposes $150 billion in additional tax
reductions. Eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Across-the-board tax
cuts. And, shoot, the inheritance tax, we have already paid taxes on it
once. I believe every American in this country after working hard
should have the opportunity to pass their inheritance on to their
children, not to the United States Government. That is why we have
proposed extensive tax relief.
How are we able to set aside for money for Social Security and
provide additional tax relief? That really goes back to the first
chart, and again this first chart shows it emphatically. This is the
only budget that holds spending increases in this government at or
below the rate of inflation. These others that are going up faster than
the rate of inflation will say good-bye to the tax cuts, will say good-
bye to that money is that supposed to be set aside for Social Security,
because every nickel over the rate of inflation, that is money that
should be set aside to preserve and protect Social Security and reduce
the tax burden on our American families.
Let me close with what I believe the priorities of this Nation are,
because we have been hearing about these priorities and where we place
our priorities in this country. I believe our priorities should be to
defend our Nation. I believe it is the number one role of this
government, to make sure that this Nation is safe and secure for our
children.
I think our responsibility is to return the control of education back
to the parents and the teachers and the community. Control of education
should not be out here at the United States Government. And just for
the record, this budget allows inflationary increases in education.
Preserve Social Security and reduce the tax burden. Those are the
priorities of the CAT's budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the Neumann substitute is an amendment and its main
failing is that it fails to amend, correct, fix the many defects that
are in the Kasich budget. In fact, it worsens them.
At the outset I read a long bill of particulars to ask the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) if any of these problems in the Kasich
budget had been cured or corrected in his substitute, and I have yet to
hear an answer.
He wants to go 50 percent further with spending reduction beyond Mr.
Kasich. In income security, where the Kasich resolution would take $10
billion out of TANF, we already have a letter from the gentleman's
governor, the governor of Wisconsin, a stinging rebuke saying this is a
repudiation of the governors' agreement with respect to welfare reform.
Presumably the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) would go further,
$15 billion out of the TANF block grant.
Law enforcement, Kasich cuts law enforcement by $8 billion. If the
gentleman from Wisconsin wants to go 50 percent further, presumably he
will take $12 billion out of law enforcement.
Section 8 housing, which has just been raised by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), the Kasich budget claims to provide the outlays
to renew 1 million section 8 contracts. Presumably the gentleman from
Wisconsin would put 1.5 billion people out of housing. Kasich is bad
enough. Neumann is worse. It is ultrabad. Vote it down.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes 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 158,
noes 262, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 208]

AYES--158

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Gallegly
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood

[[Page H4205]]

Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Redmond
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--262

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Buyer
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--13

Ballenger
Furse
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Johnson, E.B.
Kennedy (MA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
McDade
Mollohan
Ros-Lehtinen
Sabo
Tanner

{time} 1242

Mr. NEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. PACKARD, and Mr. BARR of Georgia 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.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 2 printed in part 2 of House Report 105-565.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Spratt

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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:

Part 2 amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Spratt of South Carolina:
Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1999.

The Congress declares that this is the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1999 and that the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2000 through
2003 are hereby set forth.

SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the
fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 1999: $1,321,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $1,341,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,379,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,436,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,491,000,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 1999: -$900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: -$200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $700,000,000.
(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 1999: $1,420,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $1,463,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,503,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,537,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,611,200,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 1999: $1,403,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $1,445,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,484,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,501,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,578,300,000,000.
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 1999: $82,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $104,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $104,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $64,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $87,300,000,000.
(5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt
are as follows:
Fiscal year 1999: $5,582,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000: $5,756,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $5,926,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $6,059,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $6,211,100,000,000.

SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal
years 1999 through 2003 for each major functional category
are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $270,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $265,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $274,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $268,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $280,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $269,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $288,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $272,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $296,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $279,800,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $14,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $15,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $18,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $17,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $17,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $17,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$600,000,000.

[[Page H4206]]

Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,000,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $23,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $23,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $22,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,200,000,000.
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, $22,700,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $11,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $10,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $10,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $4,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $14,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $14,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $51,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $52,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $53,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $54,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $56,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,900,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $8,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $7,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $7,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $7,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $7,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $63,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $64,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $65,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $66,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $69,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,700,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $145,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $143,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $151,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $151,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $159,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $159,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $166,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $167,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $177,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $178,600,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $209,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $210,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $221,510,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $220,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $239,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $242,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $251,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $248,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $273,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $273,400,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $246,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $247,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $259,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $258,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $270,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $268,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $280,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $278,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $291,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $288,900,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,300,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $43,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $44,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $45,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $47,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $49,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,800,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $25,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $24,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $24,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $25,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,600,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $14,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $296,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $296,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $297,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $297,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $296,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $296,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $296,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $296,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $297,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $297,800,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$3,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$800,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, -$37,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$37,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, -$39,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$39,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$43,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$43,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$51,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$51,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$42,700,000,000.

[[Page H4207]]

(B) Outlays, -$42,700,000,000.

SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

(a) Submissions.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
adoption of this resolution, the House committees named in
subsection (b) shall submit their recommendations to the
House Committee on the Budget. After receiving those
recommendations, the House Committee on the Budget shall
report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all
such recommendations without any substantive revision.
(b) Instructions to House Committees.--
(1) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on
Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that provide direct spending to decrease outlays
by $0 for fiscal year 1999 and decrease outlays by
$40,000,000 for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(2) Committee on banking and financial services.--The House
Committee on Banking and Financial Services shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct
spending to decrease outlays by $212,000,000 for fiscal year
1999 and decrease outlays by $1,045,000,000 for fiscal years
1999 through 2003.
(3) Committee on commerce.--The House Committee on Commerce
shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that
provide direct spending to decrease outlays by $707,000,000
for fiscal year 1999 and decrease outlays by $2,765,000,000
for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(4) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House
Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes
in laws within its jurisdiction that that provide direct
spending to decrease outlays by $86,000,000 for fiscal year
1999 and increase outlays by $3,443,000,000 for fiscal years
1999 through 2003.
(5) Committee on resources.--The House Committee on
Resources shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that that provide direct spending to decrease
outlays by $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and decrease
outlays by $381,000,000 for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(6) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that provide direct spending to decrease outlays
by $437,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and decrease outlays by
$892,000,000 for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.

SEC. 5. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF COMPENSATION AND PAY FOR
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON TOTAL BUDGET SURPLUSES AND
SOCIAL SECURITY.

It is the sense of Congress that:
(1) The total budget surplus should be reserved until the
Congress and the President enact comprehensive measures
providing for the long-term solvency of Social Security,
while preserving its core protections for present and future
generations of American families.
(2) There should be established within the Treasury a
``Save Social Security First Reserve Fund'' to be used to
save budget surpluses until a reform measure is enacted to
ensure the long-term solvency of the Old-Age, Survivors, and
Disability Insurance Trust Funds. The Secretary of the
Treasury should pay into the account at the end of each
fiscal year an amount equal to the surplus, if any, in the
total budget of the United States Government for that fiscal
year. Balances in that account should be invested in Treasury
securities and interest earnings should be credited to the
account.

SEC. 7. RESERVE FUND FOR POTENTIAL TOBACCO LEGISLATION.

(a) In General.--Budget authority and outlays may be
allocated to a committee or committees for legislation that
increases funding to promote smoking prevention and
cessation, curbs cigarette smoking among teenagers, makes
payments to the States to mitigate the costs incurred of
treating smoking-related illnesses, provides support to
tobacco farmers, makes payments to other claimants against
tobacco companies, or funds Federal medical research, within
such a committee's jurisdiction, if such a committee or the
committee of conference on such legislation reports such
legislation, and if, to the extent that the costs of such
legislation are not included in this concurrent resolution on
the budget, the enactment of such legislation will not
increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or previously
passed legislation) the deficits in this resolution for--
(1) fiscal year 1999; and
(2) the period of fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
(b) Revised Allocations.--Upon the reporting of legislation
pursuant to subsection (a), and again upon the submission of
a conference report on such legislation (if a conference
report is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the House of Representatives may file with the
House appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised
functional levels and aggregates to carry out this
subsection. Such revised allocations, functional levels, and
aggregates shall be considered for the purposes of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional
levels, and aggregates contained in this concurrent
resolution on the budget.
(c) Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (Medicare Part A
Trust Fund).--Congress intends that any tobacco proceeds not
used for increased funding under subsection (a) should be
deposited in the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
(established under section 1817 of the Social Security Act).

SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE ACT.

(a) Findings.--The 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 in lieu of traditional income support and to
assist them in becoming more involved in planning their
future, new public-private relationships that encourage
asset-building should be undertaken;
(4) individual development account programs are
successfully demonstrating the ability to assist low-income
families in building assets while partnering with community
organizations and States in more than 40 public and private
experiments nationwide; and
(5) Federal support for a trial demonstration program would
greatly assist the creative efforts of existing individual
development account experiments.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that,
in carrying out its reconciliation instructions pursuant to
this concurrent resolution, the Committee on Ways and Means
should include the text of H.R. 2849 (the Assets for
Independence Act) in its submission to the House Committee on
the Budget.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ON
CLINICAL CANCER TRIALS.

It is the sense of Congress that the committees of
jurisdiction should consider legislation this session that
would establish a 3-year demonstration project providing
medicare coverage for beneficiaries' participation in
clinical cancer trials.

SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE INTERIM PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR
HOME HEALTH BENEFITS UNDER MEDICARE.

(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the interim payment system for home health service has
adversely affected some home health care agencies and
medicare beneficiaries;
(2) if home health care is threatened and further reduced,
health care costs to Federal and State governments, as well
as families, may rise to cover more expensive post-hospital
and long-term care;
(3) the committees of jurisdiction should initiate a
revision of the interim payment system, paying particular
attention to providing a more gradual reduction in home
health care costs and additional time for home health care
agencies to adjust to lower rates and reimbursements;
(4) due to the critical nature of this issue, Congress
should enact an equitable and fair revision of the interim
payment system before the adjournment of the 105th Congress;
and
(5) the Health Care Financing Administration should fully
implement by October 1, 1999, the prospective payment system
that was enacted into law last year.

SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON TAX RELIEF.

It is the sense of Congress that the committees of
jurisdiction should accommodate high priority tax relief of
approximately $30,000,000,000 over 5 years within legislation
that fully offsets revenues lost by closing or restricting
unwarranted tax benefits. Such tax relief should--
(1) accommodate the revenue effects of improving rights for
medical patients and providers in managed care health plans;
(2) expand tax credits to alleviate the costs of child care
for families;
(3) reduce financing costs for primary and secondary public
school modernization;
(4) extend long-supported and previously renewed tax
benefits that will soon expire such as the Work Opportunity
and Research and Experimentation credits; and
(5) mitigate tax code ``marriage penalties'' in a manner at
least equal in scope to the 1995 tax relief provision of H.R.
2491.
Amend the title so as to read: ``A concurrent resolution
establishing the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 1999 and setting forth appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and
2003.''.

{time} 1245

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Pursuant to House Resolution
455, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

[[Page H4208]]

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, when I finally got a good look at this
Republican budget, it reminded me of a country song that I once heard
entitled My Daddy Took a Back-Hoe and Built Me a Sand-Castle of Sludge.
Mr. Chairman, what a mess. After a long wait, with lots of noise,
lots of rumbling and too much slip-sliding around the details, my
colleagues across the aisle have come up with a budget that just will
not stand up. I think we would all be lucky if a big wave just came
along and washed it all out to sea.
Fortunately, the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, has
developed a budget plan that is both solid and sensible. I want to
congratulate him on his work. The Democratic budget is a responsible
budget, it shows fiscal restraint, and it harnesses this Nation's
potential to help move this country forward.
The Democratic budget invests in education. It includes funding to
modernize our schools, to reduce class size, to improve discipline and
to help our students excel.
From Head Start to Pell grants, this budget says that the strength of
our Nation tomorrow depends on the education we give our children
today.
In addition to education, the Democratic budget invests in better
health care. It expands Medicare, it protects Medicaid, it funds
medical research and moves to establish a Patients' Bill of Rights so
that doctors and patients and nurses can make medical decisions and not
insurance companies.
The Democratic budget protects the environment. On this I want to pay
particular compliment to my friend from South Carolina and the
Democrats on the Committee on the Budget, because they provide vital
resources to clean up our rivers and our lakes, to get rid of toxic
waste sites and to preserve our great natural inheritance for
generations to come.
The Democratic budget proposal protects Social Security. It sets
aside the budget surplus until we can reach a bipartisan plan to fund
it for the long term. Our parents, Mr. Chairman, should not have to
worry about their retirement and neither should their children.
The Democratic budget also offers working families $30 billion in tax
relief. It cuts the marriage penalty, it expands the child care tax
credit, it helps small businesses, and it makes health care more
affordable.
All in all, it is a good budget. It is a balanced budget. It is a
budget that invests in people and creates opportunity. It stands, I
sadly say here this afternoon, in stark contrast to the Republican
budget.
The budget was due on the 15th of April. We have waited, patiently,
and we have waited. This budget that they submitted is the latest
budget in the history of the United States Congress. What did they
finally come up with? They came up with the same old bilge that
Americans have rejected time and time again.
The Republican budget begins to dismantle Social Security, it slashes
Medicaid, it cheats education, it bulldozes the environment, it
squanders the surplus. Even Senator Domenici, excuse me for mentioning
the other body, Mr. Chairman, distinguished gentleman from New Mexico,
a Republican, he called the Republican House budget, and I quote, a
mockery.
This budget that they have proposed moves us backward. That is the
wrong direction. We cannot afford to backslide. We need better schools.
We need a cleaner environment and more affordable health care, not the
same old slash-and-burn tactics of the Contract on America.
The Democratic budget plan builds on our current successes, it keeps
the budget in balance, it helps working families, and it invests in the
future of this great country.
I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt budget and oppose the
Republican budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), my colleague on the Committee
on Ways and Means.
(Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I will make this very brief. I am going
to have to vote against the Spratt substitute budget since it suggests
a variety of policy changes that I do not think are appropriate. But I
will support the Kasich budget. I feel we need to keep the process
moving.
Having said that, in all honesty, I do this with a great reluctance.
Let me tell my colleagues why in three reasons.
First of all, the premise of long-term tax cuts partially paid for by
short-term expense reductions violates the pay-go principles that we so
hard fought for several years ago. This is like taking out a 30-day
note to pay for your dream house which you hope to live in for the rest
of your life. It does not make any sense at all.
Secondly, I worry about putting expense numbers on a piece of paper
which are important, impact the future but which are totally
unrealistic. This does not represent profiles in courage.
Thirdly, I have lived long enough that a tree does not grow to
heaven. We are enjoying a strong economy, maybe even a bubble economy.
I do not think we should do anything to do something untoward at this
particular time, so we really understand what we are going through now.
So one can ask, why do I feel and why am I going to vote for this
budget at all? I feel it is important for the body to send a document,
imperfect as it may be, to conference with the Senate. I stand behind
the process. I want to keep it moving. However, as a parting shot, if
the numbers come back to us after the conference as they are set out
before us now, I am going to vote the other way.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Spratt
substitute.
Let's be honest: the Republican budget resolution is a political
document that fails even the most basic test of mathematics and fiscal
reality. Its authors know it, I know it, we all know it. Even their
party's most respected budget expert in the Senate, Senator Domenici,
called this GOP budget ``a mockery.''
The National Conference on State Legislators, the National League of
Cities, and many Governors--of both parties--have also expressed their
opposition to the resolution.
Instead of keeping faith with last year's Balanced Budget Agreement,
the Republican leadership's budget requires cuts in domestic programs
that are so draconian that its authors don't even have the courage to
tell the American people what they are. What we do know is that $100
billion dollars--in addition to the reductions adopted last year--would
have to be cut from Medicare, Medicaid, education, environment,
veterans and other domestic programs over the next five years.
As has been the case time and time again, these budget cuts will hurt
low- and moderate-income working--and tax-paying--families the hardest.
If this budget is adopted, it also will force us to turn a blind eye to
serious national problems such as crumbling and overcrowded schools.
Because of the restrictive rule governing this debate, the only
responsible budget plan before us is this substitute offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt. This resolution keeps faith
with last year's bipartisan budget agreement, includes $30 billion in
carefully targeted tax cuts, and will provide funding to fix school
buildings, provide affordable child care, hire 75,000 new teachers, and
boost investments in medical research. It also protects Americans'
retirement income by reserving all budget surpluses for Social Security
until a long-term plan for preserving Social Security is adopted.
For the sake of our children, our veterans, and the future of our
Nation, I urge support of the Spratt substitute and opposition to the
underlying bill.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Spratt substitute because I think the gentleman from South Carolina,
with his years of experience in the budget process, has put together a
substitute that makes sense and does not repeat failures of the past,
such as in 1981 when we made promises to cut taxes, to increase defense
spending, and to cut discretionary spending to pay for

[[Page H4209]]

those things, which of course, never happened.
When I look at the budget resolution that is before us today, I see
that same thing happening. I see it in a particular area of great
interest to me, and an area that I have put a great deal of time into,
and that area is the marriage penalty, something that affects millions
of families. I do think our budget should move in that direction, to
help the working families of America.
I have worked for years to fix the marriage penalty. In fact, I
called for the CBO report which is now the definitive study and which
we can look to to help us get where we want to go. I am the leading
Democrat on a bill to reinstate the two-earner deduction which is I
think the best way we should go, and it has the bipartisan support of
182 cosponsors.
But when I look at the budget resolution before us today, I see a
suggestion that we address the marriage penalty with a $100 billion
solution. That is the top of the mark. We may like that solution, we
would like to address the marriage penalty, but to pay for it by
cutting other programs, I wonder if that will ever happen. I think same
of us have seen some polling, and perhaps this is an issue that has
become very popular. I say that because back in 1995, the majority had
an opportunity to fix the marriage penalty, tried to fix it in a very
small way and in a very intricate way that was very, very difficult to
administer.
I stand here today saying to the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget that his efforts have always been good in the past, but that
right now I see him not doing what he should do to help American
families. He says he is going to fix the marriage penalty. I do not
know from where he is going to get the $100 billion. I hope this
question, of the marriage penalty, goes to the Committee on Ways and
Means and that the Committee gets back to resolving it in the way we
should, in a fair way that does not penalize others while getting rid
of the penalty for some. Fixing the marriage penalty is a good idea,
but we should do it with some common sense.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
(Mr. COSTELLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Spratt
substitute.
Mr. Chairman, every year since I began serving in this body, I have
sponsored a Constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget.
This year's balanced budget reflects that hard work which allowed us to
achieve that goal. I am proud of the way Members of Congress and the
Administration worked together last year to responsibly improve the
efficiency of government programs and cut taxes. It is these values
that should govern our future budgets.
Unfortunately, the budget document before us today does not adhere to
these principles. This resolution includes $101 billion in unspecified
cuts. It repudiates last year's bipartisan agreement, and conjures
memories of 1995, when the same House leadership shut the government
down twice with an equally illogical budget proposal. This budget
threatens the solvency of Social Security, and makes deep cuts to non-
discretionary domestic spending. The American people deserve better
than this, Mr. Speaker. This budget is not a blueprint to govern.
This budget does not adequately protect the surplus. Earlier this
year, the President stated that the surplus should be used to guarantee
the future of Social Security. There is no doubt that the Social
Security Trust Fund has long-range financing problems. Insolvency of
the Disability Insurance portion of Social Security is projected to
occur in 2015, with the retirement survivors account reaching
insolvency in 2031. That is why the budget surplus should be reserved
until a bipartisan Social Security Commission, the President and
Congress can address the long term requirements of the system. This
resolution, however, already falls short of funding current programs
and it depends too much on unspecified future cuts to offset proposed
tax cuts. This irresponsibility will siphon off the surplus before it
can be used to protect Social Security.
The resolution also cuts another $45 billion from discretionary
spending over five years--well beyond the tight limits imposed by the
Balanced Budget Agreement. We have heard many people today claim that
this is just a 1% across the board cut, which seems very minor. The
truth is far more disturbing. In this proposal, three-fifths of the
budget is exempt from any cuts. That means all of these cuts will come
from 40% of the total federal budget, which hardly qualifies as an
``across the board cut.'' Under this plan, non-defense discretionary
programs will suffer a 19% loss in purchasing power by 2003. While this
document does not contain cuts to specific programs. Republicans have
made some of their cuts known in an earlier budget document. The
Economic Development Administration, Legal Services Corporation,
AmeriCorps, and the Airport Improvement Program are all targets for
cuts under this resolution.
The Economic Development Administration has offered assistance to
many disadvantaged communities in my congressional district. Working
with the Southwestern Illinois Development Agency, the EDA has helped
communities attract employers and create jobs in areas where
unemployment is well above the national and state average, areas that
have been affected by the closing of coal mines and the migration of
industrial plants which employed thousands of people. This is not a
program that benefits bureaucrats, it helps real people find jobs and
improve their communities.

The Legal Services Corporation is another good example of a federal
program that is effectively being administered at the local level. The
creators of the LSC recognized that decisions about how legal services
should be allocated are best made not by officials in Washington, but
at a local level, by the people who understand the problems that face
their communities.
Today, the LSC provides funds to operate programs in approximately
1,100 communities nationwide, providing services to more than a million
clients per year, benefitting approximately five million individuals,
the majority of them children living in poverty. Family law makes up
one-third of all of the cases handled by LSC programs each year. In
1995, legal services programs handled over 9,300 cases involving abused
and neglected women and children.
AmeriCorps is another valuable program enabling estimated 50,000
students to earn funds for college while performing community service
in tasks ranging from assisting teachers to working on environmental
clean-up. There are two highly successful AmeriCorps sites in my
congressional district. The program in Belleville, Illinois places 34
participants in the disadvantaged Abraham Lincoln and Franklin
neighborhoods to clean up damage from the flood of 1993, and offer
conflict management training. The 24 participants in the AmeriCorps
program in East St. Louis have developed a successful tutoring program
in schools where resources are scarce.
The Airport Improvement Program is another critical federal
initiative that is jeopardized by this budget. With airline passenger
traffic expected to continue to grow, we need to ensure that airports
across the country are equipped to handle future capacity. MidAmerica
Airport in my district was recently opened to address the congestion
program in the St. Louis and MetroEast community. This airport was
completed in part through the Airport Improvement Program. Without the
development of MidAmerica Airport, the region would face considerable
capacity limits in the near future. The AIP is a critical component of
safe and efficient air travel.
In addition to these severe cuts, the assumptions addressing
transportation spending in this resolution are nothing short of
fantasy. On May 22, the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed a six-
year transportation bill including funding for highways, highway
safety, and mass transit. The budget resolution before us today falls
short of paying for this legislation by over $20 billion! Mr. Speaker,
it is completely ludicrous that this budget does not include funding to
pay for this legislation which has already passed overwhelmingly in
Congress.
Congress realized this funding is vital because our infrastructure is
crumbling around us. In my home state of Illinois, for example, a
quarter of all the bridges are structurally deficient. Forty-three
percent of roads in Illinois are in poor or mediocre condition. Driving
on these roads costs Illinois motorist $1 billion a year in extra
vehicle operating costs. That is $144 per driver. These statistics are
shameful. As we enter the next millennium, we cannot allow our nation's
infrastructure to languish in the past.
In my district in Southwestern Illinois projects funded in TEA21 are
critical to meet the transportation needs of many communities. For
example, the MetroLink light rail system provides a vital
transportation link for commuters and travelers in the St. Louis-
MetroEast area. MetroLink, whose ridership has surpassed all
expectations, has had an enormous impact on the environment,
transportation efficiency and economic development in my district and
the entire St. Louis metropolitan region.
This budget also fails to identify ways we may improve the use of our
resources. In his

[[Page H4210]]

budget for this year, the President included funding to modernize and
improve our public schools. I strongly believe this program should be
included in the House budget resolution. It provides incentives to
communities to invest in local school facilities through the use of
leveraged bonds. The program targets the 100 poorest school districts
in the nation, while providing money for the state's to use on poor
districts within their jurisdiction.
Often we dedicate our resources to the disadvantaged schools in large
urban areas, overlooking the many needy schools in rural areas. My
congressional district in Southern Illinois has many schools which
would benefit from this program. Many of the schools in my area are
dilapidated and over 50 years old. When the school buildings are warm,
safe, and comfortable, children are free to concentrate on learning.
That is something that will benefit us all.
This resolution does not save the surplus, it does not adequately
protect Social Security, it does not allow vital programs to continue,
it does not pay for programs already passed into law, and it does not
recognize ways in which government can improve its service to people. I
cannot support a resolution that violates the Balanced Budget Agreement
and threatens the solvency of Social Security. That is why I will
support the Spratt Amendment to save Social Security and honor the
Balanced Budget Agreement, and why I cannot support the Kasich budget
plan.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt
amendment. I would much preferred to have been supporting the Blue Dog
budget, but as we know that was not to be.
Let me make certain that all of my colleagues understand what the
Spratt budget does and does not do. The reason I can support it, it
stays within the balanced budget agreement of last year. It does not
spend any more money than what we agreed to last year, nor does it
raise any more taxes than what we agreed to last year. No matter how
many other people say it differently, they should know that is not
true.
In addition, the Spratt budget is honest with the BESTEA, ISTEA, the
TEA 21 bill by fully funding the additional amounts needed for highways
and transit. If we look carefully at what the gentleman from South
Carolina has done, we will see that in all aspects he is totally honest
in the manner in which he pays for those additional spending proposals
that he calls for, within the confines of the balanced budget
agreement.
I think that that is so important for us today, because I have
listened to the previous debate regarding the so-called CATs bill, and
I am reminded of Yogi Berra. That was deja vu all over again. Anybody
that believed that that would have worked as was proposed has got to be
smoking something.
This bill that is before us in the amendment today will keep us on
the track of the economy that we are now on. It lives within the
agreement that we made last year. It certainly deserves our support.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his
leadership on the Committee on the Budget. On fiscal matters generally,
I think in my own view, he is probably the most credible spokesperson
in this House in either party on these issues. I am pleased to
associate myself with his remarks.
Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for that and I commend the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). He has done a great job in
putting forth a budget that all of us, hopefully a few on the other
side of the aisle, can be supportive of.
If you agree that we set the country on the right track with the
balanced budget agreement, if you agree that our economy is moving in
the right direction, if you agree that we have the lowest unemployment
in 25 years, if you agree that we have the lowest inflation, then let
us stay with that game plan. Let us not change it. Let us not go for a
budget like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) puts out here today
that is back end loaded, that promises spending cuts but only in 2002
and 2003.

{time} 1300

Mr. NUSSLE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Miller), my colleague on the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the
time to discuss this, the budget from the Democrats today.
Last night we debated the budget that was presented by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) of the Committee on the Budget, and one of the
earlier speakers on the other side said the two budgets stand in stark
contrast to each other, and I would have to agree with my colleague,
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), on that issue because this is
a contrast that shows a vision of whether we believe in more government
or less government, whether we believe in more taxes or less taxes and
whether we want to keep more power in Washington or if we want to shift
power back to the States and individuals. And that is exactly what this
is.
Fortunately, the Spratt budget, I have to admit, is a lot better than
President Clinton's budget; so that is one good thing I can say about
it, because it does not have as many new programs and as much new
taxes, but it does have more taxes, and it does create many new
programs, and that is the problem of creating more government here in
Washington.
This is my sixth year on the Committee on the Budget, and the past 3,
under the chairmanship of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), we have
had tremendous success. We are now at a stage where we are going to
have a surplus in our budget this fiscal year ending September 30 in
the total amount of money coming in, the total amount of money going
out. We are going to have a surplus for the first time since 1969, and
that is because of the budget leadership provided by the Republicans
since we took control of this House in 1995. We have cut taxes. We have
had significant entitlement reforms such as welfare reform and Medicare
reforms, and these reforms will save money in the long term because we
are going to save the Medicare program from bankruptcy.
But the thing is it is better for the people in the programs, it is
better for the senior citizens in this country under the Medicare
program because now they are going to have choices and more options
than they have had in the past.
Now what the Spratt budget does, it wants to expand the Medicare
program while the Medicare commission is meeting right now and coming
up with recommendations. Why not wait? Why do my colleagues want to
expand more government and especially with a program that is in the
process of going bankrupt?
In the past 3 budgets we have made a significant accomplishment in
the area of discretionary spending, especially domestic discretionary.
We have gotten rid of over 300 programs in the Federal Government, and
actually in 1995 in the 104th Congress we actually had a reduction in
discretionary domestic spending. That is a real accomplishment.
We need to stick with the budget presented by the Committee on the
Budget, move forward and reduce the size and scope of the government,
and I urge defeat of the Spratt amendment.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues should vote for
this budget, everybody on both sides of the aisle, for 3 reasons.
First, it is a honest budget. No games playing. What we see is what
we get.
Secondly, it is a responsible budget. It keeps us on the road to
fiscal responsibility, it maintains a budget surplus, it does not get
us into the kind of partisan political gamesmanship that ultimately
resulted in $300 billion deficits and a $5.4 trillion Federal debt. It
keeps the momentum going towards fiscal responsibility that was
reflected in the Bipartisan Balanced Budget Agreement just a few months
ago.
And thirdly and perhaps most importantly, it is doable. We pass this
budget, and we get into conference with the Senate, and we can agree to
a budget within a matter of weeks. We will get this budget enacted, and
then we will get our appropriations bills enacted.
And then we do not have to worry about the government shutting down.

[[Page H4211]]

We do not have to worry about this Congress being embarrassed at our
lack of inaction or lack of ability to work together in a constructive
way.
I want my colleagues to think about this:
The Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee called the
budget that is the alternative, the Republican budget that is the
alternative to this that we are offering, ``a mockery''. Senator
Stevens, the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee,
called the majority's budget, a budget that would result in ``Congress
not being able to function''. Why? Because it has got things in it that
my colleagues cannot go home and justify to their constituents.
Mr. Chairman, I dare anybody that has Federal employees in their
congressional district to go out and explain why they voted to cut the
Federal employees health benefits plan down to a 50 percent required
contribution on the part of employees. Go ahead and explain it, justify
it.
My colleagues should not do this to themselves. Vote for the Spratt
budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who just spoke, said do not
worry, do not worry, this is a doable budget, do not worry, this is a
doable budget.
Do my colleagues know why it is a doable budget, know why the Spratt
substitute is a doable budget? Because it does nothing. It basically is
a status quo, do nothing budget. It does nothing to suggest that the
government is already too big and spends still too much. It does
nothing to the number of programs that need to be consolidated. It does
nothing with regard to suggesting to families and individuals and
farmers and small business people that they pay enough in taxes. It
does nothing for some of the waste that has been rooted out through a
number of hearings, everything from $800 outhouses in the Delaware
Water Gap National Recreation Area to $584,000 homes built for park
employees in Yosemite National Park to 26, and here is a do nothing,
here is a let us keep the status quo: 26,000 people in 4 States
receiving food stamps who are dead.
So, yes, let us do nothing, let us keep the status quo, let us vote
for a budget that basically says we cannot do better than that. We
cannot find a penny on the dollar. We cannot say to the American people
that what they earn and what they make and what they save is more
important than what happens out here in Washington, D.C. on a daily
regular basis. That is do nothing.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have to worry because we have got the IRS. We
can take their money out here. We do not have to worry, as the
gentleman says from Virginia. Well, okay, I guess they do not want to
worry.
I guess most of us on this side, and the reason why the Republicans
put this budget together, was because we are worried. We are worried
about the future for our kids, we are worried about the future for
Social Security, we are worried about the future for health care, we
want to make sure that the welfare reforms continue to progress in a
responsible and a positive way, we want to make sure our kids get a
decent education, controlled at home.
We are worried; that is why you need to vote for the Republican
budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran) to respond.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman.
I am worried. I am worried that we will not maintain this momentum of
fiscal responsibility.
Does the gentleman imply that the Senate is not worried about fiscal
responsibility? The Spratt budget is very much like the Senate budget.
That is why I suggest it is a doable budget. It is very much like the
President's budget.
And would the gentleman not agree that the balanced budget agreement
of just a few months ago reflected our concerns, was a responsible
instrument? The Spratt budget is virtually the same as the balanced
budget agreement. It continues the balanced budget agreement, it
continues our commit to fiscal responsibility. That is why it is
doable, and that is why the Republican budget is not doable, because it
departs from the balanced budget agreement that we agreed to just a few
months ago.
That was my point, and I think it is a very valid one, and the Senate
happens to agree with us. That is why I want my colleagues to vote for
this budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
Basically what he is saying is, ``You don't have to worry. Just keep
going. Nothing needs to be changed. There's nothing wrong with what
happens in Washington. There isn't one program that wastes money. There
isn't one bureaucracy that needs to be changed. There isn't one program
that needs to be reformed. There isn't one thing that needs to be done
other than what we did last year to continue, just maintain the status
quo.''
That is what the gentleman is saying.
Oh, last year's agreement was so good, we do not have to change a
thing.
Well, go ahead and vote for that, and, as far as the Senate comment,
do not make me answer whether or not we can do better than the Senate.
We usually do as a body, and we will continue with this budget as well.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic budget
plan. This is really the best budget that we have seen for several
years although it certainly does not have everything that any of us
would like to see in a budget, but it has some things that most of us
would like to see. The Republican budget lacks details, is mean-
spirited because it still takes from the middle class and the poor, and
it adds to the silver plate for the rich. The Democratic plan, however,
gives $10 billion in tax cuts through entitlement initiatives, and it
does not allow Republican cuts in health care, welfare to work,
education, environmental protections, infrastructure, veterans and
other programs critical to the health of our Nation.
We are in one of the most prosperous periods, yet in the midst of our
celebration of our wealth we are ignoring and passing by a sizeable
part of our American family. One-third of our population have less
buying power than 20 years ago. Our schools and our cities, countryside
and housing are in shambles, yet this House majority acts as if the
majority of people in this country are millionaires.
The Democratic budget is a coalition budget which accommodates the
values of a broader group of fellow Americans. I urge my colleagues to
support the Spratt amendment.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio).
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, the New York Times calls it
budget bologna. The Washington Post dubs it budget theatrics. Even the
Senate Budget Chairman Pete Domenici, our longtime Republican leader
there, calls it a mockery.
But no matter what it is labeled, the budget offered by the
Republican leadership even at this late date is another example of
their inability to conduct the Nation's business.
As we have heard today, there is little appetite for a budget, even
among many Republicans in this House and certainly in the Senate, that
would wipe out the Energy and Commerce Departments, privatize the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, eliminate the Legal Services
Corporation and AmeriCorps, the national service program, and abolish a
tax break for low income couples without children.
Although the outrage from the American public has forced retreat on
some of these proposals, the latest offering from the Republican
leadership continues to be unrealistic and radical. It deviates from
last year's balanced budget plan so much so that Office of Management
and Budget Director Frank Raines calls it a rank repudiation of the
balanced budget agreement on which we shook hands just 1 year ago. This
new plan makes deep cuts of $101 billion in domestic programs to pay
for 101 billion in new tax breaks that primarily help upper income
people, and it contradicts legislation that the House just passed to
increase transportation spending by $22 billion by calling for a cut in
highways and mass transit of $5 billion over 5 years.
This is patently ridiculous on its face.

[[Page H4212]]

{time} 1315

In many ways, this budget is similar to what House Republicans
proposed in 1995. As you may remember, President Clinton refused to
buckle under to pressures from the House leaders to sign a radical
budget, and Republicans shut down the Federal Government twice before
relenting. It is possible that that scenario could be repeated, if
Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership continue to play
politics with this Federal budget and this process.
Last year we had a bipartisan agreement on spending that would keep
our Nation's books balanced. We agreed on funding levels that would not
put our Nation's neediest senior citizens at risk, and would boost our
commitment to transportation, education, health care and the
environment. If the Republican leadership walks away from this
bipartisan agreement in an attempt to gain political points in this
election year, they face a risky confrontation with those of us in
Congress who demand that the government meet its needs with an honest
budget blueprint.
The Spratt substitute is just that blueprint. It puts Social Security
first, it protects Medicaid and Medicare, it allocates money so we can
enact the Patient's Bill of Rights that will give Americans in HMOs the
kind of care they deserve.
Instead of cutting funds for veterans, the environment and our
police, it increases funding for drug enforcement, law enforcement,
clean water and national parks. Instead of cutting education and
highway funding, it calls for the hiring of 75,000 teachers to reduce
class size, and fully funds the bill we passed here a few weeks ago to
rebuild the nation's infrastructure.
Let us not repeat the debacle of 1995. Let us approve an honest plan,
that keeps our budget balanced and does not put our vibrant economy at
risk. We saw today how solid our employment statistics are, with low
inflation. We ought not to be experimenting, creating an atmosphere in
which we could once again balloon the deficit because we do not have
the discipline that the Kasich budget would break.
Let us support the Spratt amendment. Let us reject this political
charade. Let us stay the course and keep America moving in the
direction that it has been moving under the Clinton Administration.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller).
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for all of his work and
effort in bringing to this Congress for a vote today a budget that is
not only responsible, but also meets the priorities and the needs of
the American people. It meets the needs of our families in the areas of
education and health care.
That is a dramatic contrast to the budget that is being served up by
the Republican majority. There they failed to set out priorities in
education, they failed to set out priorities in health care, and one of
the areas where they not only failed to set out priorities, but in fact
provide substantial reductions and threats, is to our national
environment and the programs provided to protect the environment of
this Nation.
With an excessive $5 billion cut in the area of natural resources,
they threaten programs to improve our water quality, to take care of
the refuges, to take care of the recreational areas, the national parks
and wilderness areas of this country that are visited by millions of
Americans every year. They slashed the programs to acquire additional
lands. Each and every year we do this, those lands become more
expensive and harder to acquire to protect for the use of the American
people.
We see that they have refused to provide monies to those agencies
that are essential to protecting the revenues that the American people
are entitled to for the use of their lands, revenues from mining
companies that pay us no rent as they take billions of dollars of gold
and platinum off of the public lands, the hundreds of millions of
dollars and billions of dollars that the oil companies are underpaying
the American taxpayers for the use of those lands as they take off
billions of dollars in oil and gas resources from those lands.
The Republicans' answer is to slash the budget of those agencies that
have oversight of that. Rather than charge those companies a fair rent,
a fair charge for the use of the public resources, they would rather
cut nutrition, they would rather cut health care, they would rather
threaten Medicaid and Medicare, rather than making people pay their
fair share.
The problem with all of this is it threatens the very resources that
tens of millions of people in this country will be using this summer,
our national parks, refuges and national forests. This budget is
devastating to those environmental programs.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield three minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, last night when we closed debate on the
rule, I was trying to figure out over the weekend an analogy which
would demonstrate what this debate is really all about.
There are really two debates going on here. One is inside the
Beltway, and one is outside the Beltway. Inside the Beltway we hear
people saying we cannot tighten that Federal budget belt one notch.
Let me demonstrate. What I had my staff do was go out and get three
belts. We put them together. What we have here is a nine foot belt.
Every foot on this belt represents $1 trillion worth of Federal
spending over the next five years. That is $9 trillion. That is a nine
foot belt. I do not think anybody in this House could actually wear
this belt.
All we are asking in the Kasich budget is for our friends on the
appropriations committees to tighten this belt one notch, one inch out
of a nine foot belt. Yet we hear from some of our friends here inside
the Beltway that that cannot be done, that nine feet is not enough,
that there is no waste, there is no fat, there is nothing left in the
Federal budget that can be trimmed so that we can tighten this belt
even one notch.
Now, inside the Beltway, I think to a lot of people on that side of
the aisle, that debate makes sense. But I will tell you what, outside
the Beltway in that great middle part of America, the places you call
``fly-over country,'' out there I think most Americans would look at
this belt and they would think of this analogy, and they would say to
me things like, ``You mean only one notch?''
But the great news is, if we can get our friends on the
appropriations committees to tighten that belt just one notch, guess
what? We can eliminate the marriage penalty tax. Every year over 21
million American families pay a penalty of almost $1,400 per family
just because they are married.
My wife and I celebrate our wedding anniversary this week. We have
been married 26 years now. I believe she still loves me, but I wish the
IRS would stop tempting her to leave me. That is what happens to 21
million American couples. Every year they pay a penalty just for being
married.
All we are asking here today is if we can possibly get our friends on
the appropriations committees and our friends over in the other body to
tighten this budget belt just one notch, so that we can eliminate the
marriage penalty tax, so that my wife will not be tempted to leave me,
and a lot of other spouses, not only of Members in this body, people
all over the United States.
Let us eliminate the marriage penalty tax, let us protect Social
Security, let us start paying down some of that debt, and let us
eliminate some of the fat, the waste, the fraud and the abuse in the
Federal budget so we can do the right thing, not only for American
families but for future generations of Americans as well.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Kasich plan. I respect the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the budget plan they are offering. I
think the only plan that can pass is the one offered by Mr. Kasich and
the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for the purpose of a colloquy with
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the

[[Page H4213]]

chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy
with the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, H. Con. Res. 284 as passed out
of your committee includes a budget savings allocation of $1.6 billion
to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. This allocation
would directly impact Federal workers and retirees.
While the current budget resolution does not detail specific program
reduction recommendations, an earlier version specified that reductions
should come from the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, the
FEHBP, and through increased retirement contributions past the current
expenditure dates. It cannot help but be implicitly perceived as
continuing to endorse such reduction in Federal retiree benefits, and,
I might add, current employee benefits.
Mr. Chairman, it is I my understanding based on our earlier
conversations that the Committee on the Budget will hold harmless the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in the event the committee
does not respond to its savings direction included in this budget
resolution.
Could the gentleman comment and clarify this situation?
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman
from Virginia is correct. Despite the fact that the budget resolution
draft does not include specific assumptions, the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight is reconciled for savings of about $1.6
billion. It is not our intent under this resolution that these savings
be achieved by reducing benefits in the FEHBP or any of these other
payer benefits of Civil Service or Postal Service employees or
retirees.
The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, notwithstanding
these instructions, will not be held accountable for these
reconciliation savings in the event the committee is unable to achieve
its instructed savings.
Let me further say we would not go around the committee to the
Committee on Rules in order to get that done. We will make sure we work
with the Senate to make sure that $1.6 billion does not come out of
those programs. But we will figure out a way in which to be able to
make our marker without having to do this.
I also know that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) are deeply concerned that when we
get about the penny on the dollar, we be very cautious and
compassionate about the way we do it, which is exactly how we will
proceed. I understand the concerns of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Davis) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and want to make it
clear that we will be very sensitive.
I also want to say to the gentleman from Virginia, it is our intent
out of that one penny on a dollar to be able to get ourselves in a
position of where we can make government more effective and more
efficient and squeeze out an awful lot of the waste and duplication in
order to get this job done.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman. I would just simply add that Federal employees are the
greatest asset we have in this government. We need to properly
compensate and incentivize this. I am comforted by the remarks of the
chairman.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) the minority leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, this budget is our common sense vision,
our road map for a new century and a new economy. Our budget rejects
the misguided and extreme policies and priorities of this Republican
slash-and-burn budget and comes up with a moderate and responsible
alternative.
The Republican leadership has put forward a budget that is so unfair
and unwise that it is already dead on arrival. It is unacceptable, not
only to many Democrats, but also to many Republicans as well.
I have been amused to hear the answers to questions about the budget.
There is so little specificity because no one seems able to put the
specificity behind the budget that it needs. So we hear, ``Well, that
problem will be handled in conference.'' Translated, that means we are
going to have the Domenici budget, I suppose, because everything is
going to get settled in conference.
This Republican budget is expired milk poured into new cartons. It is
more of the same fiscal radicalism based on the same irresponsible cuts
which the American people specifically rejected in the election of
1996. Do not be fooled. This budget that we are voting on in the next
few minutes is the same budget that we had in 1995 from the Contract on
America.
The Republican path steers us into a dead end, where American
families fend for themselves and are at the mercy of the global
marketplace. They want to withdraw from our commitments to education,
to health care and the environment, key areas critical to the future of
our country and the prosperity of our people.
Democrats are united behind a different vision, the vision contained
in the Democratic alternative. We want to build upon the economic
success that we currently enjoy, a success that owes a lot to the
Democratic budget of 1993, a budget that we passed without one
Republican vote in the House or in the Senate. If it were up to the
Republicans in Congress, we would not have made the wise and prudent
fiscal choices that have brought about the strongest economy that we
have seen in decades in this country.

{time} 1330

We have more work that still needs to be done. Democrats want to meet
the challenges presented to us by the changing economy and workplace.
Government must play a limited, but critical role in ensuring that the
growth we currently enjoy continues and its benefits are widely shared
by all working families.
While Republicans talk about protecting Americans and their
retirement, their budget threatens the safety and integrity of Social
Security. The Democratic budget ensures that any surplus will be used
to protect the foundation of retirement security for all Americans.
While Republicans talk a lot about the breakdown of the American
family, the Democratic budget does something to actually address the
problem. The Democratic budget makes a commitment to an act, the
Patients Bill of Rights Act, so that families will receive the health
care they need and pay for.
Our budget makes the investments in child care, which will enable
Americans to balance the needs of their families with their demands
from work.
The Democratic budget makes the smart investments in education that
we desperately need to modernize and upgrade our public schools so our
kids receive the knowledge and the skills they need to compete in a
world marketplace.
While the Republicans profess to care about preserving the
environment, their budget makes drastic cuts in environmental
protection. Democrats are fighting to safeguard our natural heritage by
increasing the funding of toxic waste cleanups and expanding parks and
open spaces.
The Kasich budget has been repudiated by moderate Republicans. It has
been renounced by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). It has been
ridiculed by Pete Domenici, and it should be rejected by this Congress.
I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt substitute, the only
honest and responsible budget alternative that has been before us.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make something clear. I have some
concerns about this resolution, especially with regard to the
provisions which I believe single out Federal employees and retirees
for unnecessary and unfair reductions.
I am encouraged by the statement of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich) to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) that the $1.6
billion in savings from the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight will not mean benefit reductions in the Federal employees
health benefits program or any

[[Page H4214]]

other pay or benefits of civil service or Postal Service employees or
retirees.
With that assurance, I will vote for the resolution to move the
process forward, but it does not mean that I will vote for it when it
comes back in the conference report. I will weigh it then.
One other thing, if I could just get the gentleman's attention. I
would urge the gentleman from Ohio that when he looks at the final
agreement to remember the poorest and the most vulnerable in our
country.
In the Bible, there are 244 references to the poor; 172 in the Old
Testament, 72 in the New Testament. The oppressed are mentioned 45
times. I must tell the gentleman, in this whole body, both sides, that
the passage of the highway bill, which was laden with pork barrel
spending projects, was very troubling to me, especially the full court
press lobbying efforts and the hiring of certain lobbyists to get
certain projects in that bill.
I just wanted to say that the way the Congress, I believe, has
pursued the recent highway bill, which funds $216 billion over the next
6 years for surface transportation, while transportation funding is
necessary, I believe that the Congress got greedy, and we have
effectively blown the budget caps and all that for a lot of special
pork barrel projects.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, I think he
knows I started a fight against corporate welfare in this House, which
I fight every day. That is because I made the argument that we just
cannot take from one group. We cannot reform welfare for the poor
without reforming welfare for the rich.
The fact of the matter is government is a final safety net for people
who do not have anything. Where I come from, it is a sin not to help
people who need help. But I also say it is always a sin to continue to
help people who need to learn to help themselves.
I would say to the gentleman that we want to be very sensitive to
this and not pick, as one person once said, on the weak clients in our
society without having the guts to stand up and take on some of the
special interests. As the gentleman knows, I share his concern in a
number of areas, and I have worked hard, worked hard to try to
ameliorate some of those rough edges and keep at it.
Mr. WOLF. Well, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Next week, I
will send the gentleman a letter on this issue that I would like to
share. I know probably no one will read it, and many will think it is
too preachy, but it will be a letter to the entire Republican caucus on
this issue, which includes the passage of the unfortunate highway bill.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), my colleague on the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me. There is much concern in this House on both sides of the aisle
with every budget that comes before us. It is a document. It is a
political document which can become troublesome, particularly during
election times.
However, it is the responsibility of us to pass a budget. It is our
responsibility to read these budgets and to come up with the best
particular budget that we can.
In reading over the Kasich budget, there was concern and there is
concern that has been expressed in this House as to what is going to
happen to TANF. That is welfare. It was this Republican Congress that
passed welfare reform. We did it in cooperation with the governors in
this country, in partnership with the governors of this country. We
gave our word to the governors that we were going to hold the funding
for 5 years, and that is exactly what we are going to do.
I chair the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over TANF, and I will
give my word now to each Member in this Congress that we are not going
to cut TANF this year. The final budget that comes out of Congress will
exactly back us up on that particular matter. We have given our word.
We keep our word.
Let us get on with this. Let us vote down the Spratt budget and vote
up the Kasich budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains for both sides, and
who has the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle) has 14 minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle) has the right to close.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let us just go back for a second and think
about what we are talking about here. Over the last 5 years, the
Federal Government has spent $7.8 trillion. Over the next 5 years, we
are scheduled to grow from $7.8 trillion to $9 trillion.
The American family would say, frankly, if we sat down with them and
said, do we need to go from $7.8 trillion to $9.1 trillion, they
probably would not serve us dinner that night.
We are not even asking to make any difficult or serious reduction in
government. All we are suggesting is, instead of the government going
from $7.8 trillion to $9.1 trillion, they go to $9 trillion.
We save a penny on the dollar. You cannot run away from it. You
cannot escape it. You cannot hide from it. It is designed to save one
penny on each dollar of Federal spending.
We take those savings, and do you know what we do with them, Mr.
Chairman? We help the American family. We say that we want to get rid
of this marriage penalty. We also want to work with the small business
community to make it easier for them to thrive, because, you know, in
some ways, the small business community is synonymous with the health
of the American people.
So our approach here today is to try to trim some of the excess out
of government, to make government more efficient and more effective. We
do not see a reason why we need 150 separate job training programs and
340 programs in housing, including 103 that are inactive.
We do not see a reason why we should have an $800,000 outhouse in the
Delaware Water Gap or to spend $584,000 per home in Yosemite. We
certainly do not see a reason to spend $34 million to do closed
captioning of the Jerry Springer Show and Bay Watch.
I mean, the fact is, in an institution that is the largest
institution on the face of this globe, it is the one major institution
on the face of this globe that has not undergone any downsizing.
What we have to ask ourselves today is can we begin to change the
culture of Washington. Any time there has got to be some kind of a
change, people jump up and say do not affect me. But we have got a
choice. If we cannot affect the culture of Washington, if we cannot
save a penny on a dollar, then we are telling the American family the
government is more important than they are. That is not a message that
any of us want to communicate out of this Chamber.
The fact is we all know intuitively, and of course we know by solid
example, that, in fact, we can live under this heavy yoke of only $9
trillion in spending to be able to help our families.
In terms of the President's budget, folks, look, $150 billion in new
spending and $130 billion in new taxes. He essentially is trying to
reinvent the era of big government. In the Spratt budget, there are no
tax cuts. They want to have more tax increases and blow through the
spending caps and wreck the discipline that Alan Greenspan told us
would hurt this economy.
The bottom line is it is a reasonable proposal. Do you know what I
wish? Do you know who I wish was here today to vote on this? All the
people outside of this Beltway who go to work for a living and struggle
every day to make ends meet.
Members are sitting in their offices, and they are thinking about
this vote, and ask yourself, can we save a penny on a dollar and
communicate to our constituents that mom and dad and the kids are the
most important thing going on in this society today?
In light of all the incidents that we have seen over the last couple
of months, I think the answer is unquestionably yes. We just resist
some of the culture. We just resist some of the people that are trying
to trap us in this city, resist some of the people who say

[[Page H4215]]

that America should be run from the top down.
Let us transfer power, money, and influence from this city back to
the people so they are in charge in their communities to develop local
solutions to local problems, strengthen the family, and strengthen the
community, and build America from the bottom up.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes just to point out
something. It is interesting, as we actually look through the Spratt
proposal, and this is probably something that would surprise many
people because of all of the rhetoric that we have heard here today.
But interestingly enough, the Democrats cut Medicare.
They cut Medicare from the Republican budget; in fact, $600 million
the first year, $300 million the second year, $400 million a third
year, $300 million the fifth year. They cut Medicare.
These are the same folks who were down here in the well just a moment
ago talking about how important health care was to them, and, yet, they
are running around cutting Medicare. It is one thing to claim that you
are cutting, and it is another thing to claim that you are actually
being responsible.
I am sure there is a logical explanation for all of these Medicare
cuts. I am sure they are going to claim it has something to do with
fraud or waste or something like that. If that is what it is, of course
I am amazed to find out all the Democrats can find within a Medicare
budget is only $600 million worth of fraud.
But it just points out that sometimes the rhetoric that we hear on
the floor does not meet the reality of the words and figures that are
on the pages. There are things like that that make it very frustrating.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman, it is
important that we have talked about the Clinton budget, but, frankly,
we need to talk about what we are all about, why we took charge in
1995, what we came here to do as a majority party, joined with some of
our friends on the other side of the aisle. We came to make the budget,
government budget smaller and the family budget bigger.

{time} 1345

In order to do that, we are going to create a mechanism in this House
that will create the reforms, the commonsense reforms, that the
American people really want.
I would say to my Republican colleagues, we do not want to forget the
reason why the people sent us here. It was to reduce government. It was
to reduce regulation. It was to return power, money, and influence to
the people. It was to make government more effective. It was to make
government more efficient. It was to reject the notion that big
government can solve our problems.
Do Members want to know something? That is what the people in the
neighborhoods are saying today, give me a chance to get up to bat. Give
me a chance to have some of my power back. Give me a chance to have
some of my money back, and make the Federal Government more effective
and more efficient, and stop having to take too much from me. Make it
work.
I would say to the gentleman, this is the incentive we need to get
this done. I want to suggest to the gentleman, we can change the
culture. We can respond to what the people want and we can improve our
country.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means, who will engage in a colloquy with the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me for the purposes of a colloquy that I might have with the chairman
of the Committee on the Budget, to just put in the Record precisely
what this budget document intends and what it will permit in the
writing of a tax bill, to give relief in the amount of $101 billion
that is provided in the budget document.
Mr. Chairman, I think there has been some degree of misunderstanding
about this. It is my understanding, and I would like for this to be
confirmed by the chairman, it is my understanding that, number one,
this budget is designed to reduce the record tax burden on the American
people. That is, we reduce that burden, and that we will have a
balanced bill which will include a number of different items.
Certainly we should take action against the marriage penalty, reduce
the complexity of the capital gains, pay down the debt, save Social
Security, pass additional middle-income tax relief measures, create
incentives for growth, savings, and job creation, so that as we have
done in the past, we will put forward a bill of comprehensive tax
relief in a balanced way.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KASICH. Let me just say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to underscore with an exclamation point everything that he has
said. That is precisely what our agenda is.
Frankly, I would like to say to the gentleman that I share his great
frustration with a lot of the government estimators in this town who we
have used for a long period of time to make sure we stay on a path, but
frankly, who have been wildly inaccurate in terms of their projections
of what was going to happen to this economy.
One interesting thing I would say to the chairman, the chairman of
the Fed, Mr. Greenspan, came to the Committee on the Budget and made an
argument at one point that if we zeroed out the capital gains tax it
would not cost the government a dime.
What we have seen is by reducing the capital gains rate, it has
generated more revenues, like most of us thought it would, the same way
that when we repeal a luxury tax, we begin selling boats again in this
country.
So I say to the gentleman, we are in sync. Both of us have a
commitment to get to the same place: to empower people, be pro-growth,
give people a fair shot, limit the growth of government, expand the
personal power through tax relief.
I really look forward to the day, and it is coming soon, when we are
going to have surpluses even in that general fund, where the gentleman
from Texas (Chairman Archer) is going to be able to return those big
high revenues that float into this city right back into the American
people's pockets, rather than let people in this town have any
incentive to think about spending them.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I began this debate by saying that the
Kasich resolution is not realistic. I could not have given more graphic
proof for my argument than what has just happened before our very eyes
here in the House of Representatives, right here in the well of the
House. We have seen this budget come unraveled, piece by piece. First
of all, we started this morning.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the gentleman
from South Carolina, did we not hear in the last few minutes the
highway bill of $21 billion has not been accommodated in the budget?
Mr. SPRATT. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. GEPHARDT. The user fees have been renounced at about $8 billion
to $10 billion?
Mr. SPRATT. This morning we passed a resolution renouncing the fees,
but the Kasich bill has $8 to $10 billion in new user fees, $7 in all,
in it. Presumably they are not going to repudiate their principle and
impose user fees of their own when they have denounced the President
for doing it.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Can I ask the gentleman if the agriculture research
money we voted for last night was there?
Mr. SPRATT. Absolutely not. We passed a bill, it costs $2 billion,
and it is not accommodated in this budget.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Can I ask the gentleman about the veterans' expenses,

[[Page H4216]]

which was included in the transportation bill?
Mr. SPRATT. When we passed the highway bill we repealed some veteran
benefits, and in return, to palliate, we added $1.6 billion to the
Montgomery G.I. bill. It is not in this bill. Instead, this bill still
has a remnant that is out of date. It calls on the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs to reconcile another $10 billion. They take a double
whammy, a double hit.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Did I not hear, can I ask the gentleman, that Federal
employee cuts were restored in the last few minutes?
Mr. SPRATT. Right here a few minutes ago the gentleman saw them
restore it. It validates what I have said. These cuts are not
realistic. They will not happen. They undid them right here on the
House floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the gentleman quickly about
the back and forth on TANF. Does not the budget resolution say that
there shall be a $10 billion reduction in Function 600?
Mr. SPRATT. It does indeed, and I do not know where it will come,
except for TANF. This is another example of the budget resolution
saying it will, and then Members getting up here and saying it will
not, and then voting for a document that says it will; such
contradictory statements.
Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman will further yield, Mr. Chairman, I
will say that Senator Domenici called this budget a mockery. That is
what has happened today on the floor with this budget.
Mr. SPRATT. We say it has a $50 black hole, and it is getting bigger
by the minute.
Mr. Chairman, less than a year ago the House approved the balanced
budget agreement of 1997. It was a good agreement, a bipartisan
agreement. It built on the Clinton budget of 1993, which wiped out the
deficit, and paved the road for surpluses as far as the eye can see.
Our resolution, the Spratt resolution, the Democratic resolution,
sticks by that agreement. The spending totals, the revenue totals, all
of our numbers are in sync with the balanced budget agreement. We save
the surpluses because we want to save Social Security. We spare
Medicare from further cuts. In fact, we broaden its coverage, because
we believe in Medicare.
We protect Medicaid because we believe in Medicaid, and particularly
the children's health insurance program, because we are proud of that
achievement in the balanced budget agreement last year. We think it
would be unconscionable to tell children and their parents that they
have coverage at last, only to jerk it away from them the next year.
We fund key initiatives in education, in child care, and call for $30
billion in tax relief, tilted towards working families.
There is one thing of particular fiscal importance in this bill, in
this resolution. On September 30, when we close the books on fiscal
1998, the Federal Government will show a surplus for the first time in
30 years, a surplus of $40 to $60 billion. That surplus was hard-
earned, and we think we should husband it.
Sure, we proposed some initiatives in education and child care
because these are the things we believe in, but we offer offsets to pay
for these initiatives. We do not take a single dollar out of the
surplus. We say, instead, that the surplus should be saved, held in a
reserve fund, as it were, to save Social Security for the long run.
Over the last several years this government has enjoyed a surge of
revenues, but until we know that surge is permanent and recurring,
until we have taken the next step, the giant steps necessary to ensure
the solvency of Medicare and Social Security for the long run, we are
wary of cutting back revenues deeply and drawing down this surplus.
In the balanced budget agreement, we have provided for tax relief. We
think there is room for more. We think the tax code is full of
deductions, credits, exemptions, and preferences that could stand a
scrub. We recommend that the Committee on Ways and Means search the
code for $30 billion in unwarranted tax benefits, call them what we
will, and redistribute the tax burden just a bit more in favor of
working families.
Surely we can do this much to help hard-working families. Surely we
can do this much to help hard-working families afford the cost of child
care and to mitigate the so-called marital tax penalty.
We ourselves have scrubbed spending to come up with $10 billion in
cuts over the next 5 years. This is a small sum, but we think the money
can do more good if it is used to help school districts, reduce the
pupil-teacher ratio in grades 1 through 3, or if it is used to fund the
early learning fund.
Here are a few of the other things we propose: broadening the
coverage of Medicare so those between 55 and 65 can buy into it. Here
are a few of the things we propose in the context of a balanced budget:
improving the child care tax credit so it applies to families with
incomes up to $60,000, so that families of four with incomes of $35,000
or less will have no tax liability if they take full use of the credit,
passing a patient's Bill of Rights.
So our budget sounds some new themes, but they are all fully offset
and paid for. At bottom, this is a balanced budget agreement which the
House passed overwhelmingly last year. If Members ask me to tell them
in a sentence what this substitute does, I will tell them. It restores
the budget to reality. It restores funds that the Kasich resolution
takes.
If they ask me in a sentence to tell them what this budget does, I
will tell them, it restores this budget to reality. The gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) presents this budget as a 1 percent cut in spending,
but since the largest accounts in the budget, Social Security and
defense and debt service, are not cut, they are increased, the accounts
that are cut take heavy hits.
The remaining cuts are far, far greater than 1 percent. By our
calculation, the Kasich budget will cut domestic discretionary spending
by at least 6 percent, on top of the 12 percent in cuts already
dictated by the balanced budget agreement, and still being
administered. Bob Reischauer, whom we respect on both sides of the
aisle, has pointed out that really about half of discretionary spending
is not subject to cuts. It is essential administrative functions of the
government, the FBI.
This means that to achieve the cuts the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich) is talking about, the cuts will have to go as deep as 36
percent. As one Member, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) on the
other side of the aisle, said, this will mean deep cuts in some
programs and the extinction of others.
Which programs are in the crosshairs? Law enforcement gets cut $8
billion, education nearly $5 billion, the environment $5 billion. It
goes on and on and on.

{time} 1400

Our resolution is not a duplicate of the resolution that passed the
other body, but we are close enough to bridge the differences in a
concurrent resolution. We give Members a responsible choice. We stick
close to the bipartisan Balanced Budget Agreement and we cut the
clearest path to a concurrent resolution.
There are many reasons this resolution should be the budget
resolution this House passes, but if Members voted for the Balanced
Budget Agreement, if they want to see a budget resolution become a
concurrent resolution, if they want to save the surplus for Social
Security, if they want to protect Medicare and Medicaid, they should
vote for this and reject the Kasich budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker of the House.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I think that this is in
some ways as historic a vote as the votes of the last three or four
years. It did not start out this way this year. We had a budget
agreement that was going to last for five years. I commend the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) who helped with that last
year. It was an historic bipartisan agreement.
But then Washington just could not allow things to go on in a normal
implementation. The President, for good and legitimate reasons, sent up
a budget that had much higher spending. It

[[Page H4217]]

had higher taxes. We just voted a while ago and this entire House, I
believe unanimously with the exception of one Member, voted against all
the tax increases the President sent up.
But it was clear to us, and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio
(Chairman Kasich), because he from a very early point sensed what was
happening. The pressures in this city for more spending, for higher
taxes, the pressures in this city to avoid reforming the system, the
pressures to say the bureaucracy is perfect, we cannot find any money,
we cannot change anything, just give us more of the American people's
money, let us have more power in Washington, those pressures were
building.
I am told that today, and I do not know if they have done it, but I
am told that today the Federal Communications Commission may vote a
tax, something which in all of American history has never occurred. A
constitutional abrogation of power to a group of bureaucrats, appointed
figures, who will tax every telephone line in America. Because in this
city if we do not tame it, if we do not get it under control, if we do
not fight for the taxpayers, this city grows every day and it takes
more money and more power and it says, ``Come to Washington and beg the
bureaucrats to get your own money back.''
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) came to us and said, ``You know,
we ought to make a big effort to establish the principle that we are
going to be for lower taxes and lower spending. That Washington is not
tamed yet.''
Some might say why would we listen to the gentleman? The fact is, and
it is one of the great stories that is not covered very much in this
city because it makes this city so comfortable, that 3 years of our
effort is working.
We passed welfare reform and my good friends on the left got up and
opposed it. We passed it three times. It was vetoed twice. Guess what?
Welfare reform is working and in 49 States welfare rolls are lower. In
New York City welfare roles are the lowest they have been since 1967
because reforms are working.
Then we said let us cut domestic discretionary spending. And let me
say that the Committee on Appropriations led by the gentleman from
Louisiana (Chairman Livingston) was brilliant. And while everybody on
the left yelled and screamed, we cut out $103 billion, we closed down
over 300 small programs and we saved the American people money.
And then we said let us get to a balanced budget. And I remember how
the people on the left and the news media laughed at the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) when he said let us get to a balanced budget. And
then we said let us get to it by 2002 and we were told, oh, that is too
soon.
Then we said let us get to it and cut taxes. Let us save enough money
by reforming enough government to cut taxes and balance the budget, and
we were told that was impossible. Guess what we did? We passed a
balanced budget with smaller government and lower taxes, and what was
the result? We cut capital gains tax and, as we predicted, we raised
more revenue because more people cashed in their capital gains, and in
April alone there was $12 billion more from capital gains that came
into this city at a lower tax rate, which I would argue means we ought
to go to a 15 percent capital gains rate and get even more money. So my
liberal friends could actually get more money out of the rich with
lower capital gains because we have real proof, but their ideology
would not permit that.
Then we said what if we were to balance the budget and lower interest
rates? Guess what happened? We balanced the budget and the Federal
Reserve has kept interest rates low. What is the result? Chrysler last
month sold more cars than in any month in its history. Why? Because
interest rates are lower, the economy is growing, taxes have been cut,
people are at work. We have the lowest unemployment rate. We have the
lowest interest rate. We have cut taxes. We are balancing the budget,
not in 2002, we are balancing the budget in 1998, four years ahead of
schedule.
Now, one would think with that kind of track record we could come to
our friends and we could say to them why do we not work together? Oh,
reform the bureaucracy? The unions would not like that. Shrink
government in Washington? The liberals would not like that. Return
power to the American people? The ideologues would not like that.
Reduce the number of lawsuits? The trial lawyers would not want that.
So here is the choice: Is this budget perfect? No, this is a human
budget written in a human institution by people working their hearts
out. Will it be improved in conference? I suspect it will, because we
will meet with our good friends in the Senate who were our partners in
welfare reform, which is working; in cutting taxes, which is working;
in saving spending, which is working; in lowering interest rates, which
is working; and in balancing the budget, which is working. And with our
partners, we will write a budget.
We will bring it back to the House and hopefully a few Democrats will
have the courage to vote for all the things that are working. Then we
will work with the President, and by this September we will get an
agreement, I think at the latest in early October, and it will be good
for America.
But if Members vote ``no'' on the Kasich budget, they are voting
against the team that reformed welfare. They are voting against the
team that cut taxes. They are voting against the team that balanced the
budget. They are voting against the team that brought domestic
discretionary spending under control, and I think that is wrong.

Let me say one other thing. We need, over time, not only lower taxes
and a smaller government in Washington, but contradictory as it will
sound to some, we need a stronger defense. We need a stronger defense
with a reformed Pentagon. We need to have as much courage at saying
yes, our young men and women deserve good equipment; there ought to be
enough of them to do everything the President wants without wearing
them out; and they ought to have the best training in the world. We
should have enough procurement.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to revisit that issue over the next six
months. The lesson of Pakistan, the lesson of India is a lesson that
the world is dangerous and America has to be strong. The lesson of
Bosnia and Kosovo and Iraq and the Middle East and North Korea is that
the world is dangerous and the United States has to be strong.
But as we approach defense spending, we are going to be for stronger
spending with less bureaucracy, with more accountability. And I believe
we can get to that, and I believe in the end the President will work
with us to get to a bipartisan consensus that America has to have a big
enough defense, with modern enough weapons, with good enough training
to be able to lead the entire world.
So I would simply say to my friends, the Democrats, their leadership
has to offer a liberal budget. It is okay. They were not with us on
welfare reform and it was okay. They were not with us on tax cuts and
it was okay. So do not flinch. The same principles that have worked for
3\1/2\ years, that have given us the lowest interest rates, the lowest
unemployment, the best take-home pay, those principles are going to
work again.
Defeat the liberal budget and then help us pass a good workmanlike
budget. Let us get to conference and continue to improve it, and let us
keep moving this country forward in the right way.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of fiscal responsibility
and in support of the Democratic Budget Resolution. The Congress has
traveled a long road to restore fiscal discipline to the budget
process. This process started in 1990 when the Congress passed the
first of three deficit reduction packages and continued in 1993 and
1997. The Democratic Budget Resolution builds on that last agreement
that we worked so hard to achieve.
The Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997, reached just nine months ago,
made some very tough cuts. We agreed then to cut spending by $300
billion over five years and $1 trillion over 10 years. We cut $115
billion from Medicare, $13 billion from Medicaid, and $172 billion from
other programs. At the same time, we met our national security needs
and made critical investments in education, children's health care, and
environmental protection in order to keep our economy strong and
address challenges facing our families. It also provided for $95
billion in tax cuts over five years, including education tax
initiatives to help families afford college costs, a child tax

[[Page H4218]]

credit, and reductions in the capital gains and estate taxes.
Building on the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997 is still the
responsible course of action. The Spratt substitute does just that. It
is an honest blueprint for the nation's fiscal policy, which conforms
with the spending levels set in Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
As I said very early this morning, the Republican budget resolution
diverges from the path of fiscal responsibility and does not
acknowledge reality. It underscores the Republicans inability to
govern, hence their desire to debate their resolution at a time when
most of the country is asleep.
The Democratic Budget Resolution does not play games. It does not
hide draconian spending cuts in blue smoke and mirrors. It is not built
on a pithy slogan that is misleading and inaccurate.
It is built on making crucial investments in education, medical
research, health care for children, environmental protection and other
vital programs, This budget resolution spells out how to pay for these
investments and a $30 billion dollar marriage penalty tax cut. Most
importantly, this budget resolution saves future surpluses to shore up
the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund.
Our budget resolution recognizes the fact that we have a $5.4
trillion debt and that we spend $250 billion on interest annually.
Today, 3.1 percent of GDP goes toward paying the interest on our debt.
Under the Democratic Budget Resolution, interest payments on the debt
will fall to 2.1 percent of GDP in the year 2003. According to the GAO,
if we spend the surpluses as the Republican Budget Resolution does, the
debt will rise by $890 billion dollars over the next 15 years.
If we abandon fiscal discipline, CBO projects that federal debt will
exceed 100 percent of GDP by 2040. That is about twice as high as the
current ratio and is a level previously reached only at the end of
World War II. Maintaining the status quo without spending the surpluses
would save us nearly one trillion dollars over 15 years.
These facts fly in the face of the math that the Majority has been
peddling. Three quarters of the budget is exempt from cuts including
interest payments, federal military and civilian retirement, Social
Security, defense spending and other portions of the budget. Promising
a tax cut is unaffordable, disingenuous and will result in long term
structural budget deficits.
In fact, $100 billion tax cut requires an 18.9 percent real cut in
non-defense discretionary spending. The Balanced Budget Agreement of
1997 already requires similar cuts. The Majority's cuts on top of last
year's cuts are just unrealistic. As a result, tax cuts will be enacted
first, spending cuts that should come later will never materialize, and
in effect, the surpluses will have been wasted.
Included in our $5.4 trillion debt is $600 billion of Treasury bonds
owned by the Social Security trust fund that will have to be retired
after 2013. The Democratic budget resolution pays down the debt, which
in turn reduces interest and principal costs to ultimately strengthen
the Social Security Trust Fund.
If we squander the surplus without beginning to retire the national
debt to a more manageable level, in the long run, we may have to borrow
more to pay off bonds as they come due, including to Social Security,
and we will be shortchanging the American people. Without maintaining a
course of fiscal discipline, the Congress' hard work since 1990 will be
compromised. Federal budget surpluses will be short lived and we will
return to deficit spending.
Given the impending retirement boom, that's not the direction in
which we want to move. I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt
substitute.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Alternative Budget
proposal offered by my colleague Representative Spratt. This Democratic
budget alternative is faithful to the fiscally responsible, bipartisan
Balanced Budget Act passed by the House last year. This alternative
budget does not make drastic new cuts in Medicaid, Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families, the Earned Income Tax Credit, education and other
vital priorities, as the Republican Budget Resolution does. The
Democratic alternative does not focus new cuts on working families, the
poor, the young and the old, as the Republican Budget Resolution does.
The Democratic alternative offered by Representative Spratt respects
the agreement this House reached with the Senate last year, and it
addresses critical priorities in our nation. The Democratic alternative
dedicates the budget surplus to Social Security to protect our seniors;
it funds additional public school teachers and school construction
initiatives for our young people. These are widely supported programs,
and they answer the crucial needs of seniors and young people. The
Democratic alternative is responsible and invests in our future. I urge
my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative budget proposal.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kasich budget
and in strong support of the substitute amendment offered by the
Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt.
When the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee called the House
Republican budget ``a mockery'' he not only described the substance of
the Kasich budget but also the procedure by which it is being
considered. Today the House is considering the budget resolution 51
days after the April 15 statutory deadline--the most delinquent budget
process in 16 years. The appropriations committees of the House and
Senate have long since dismissed the budget resolution as irrelevant
and are already busily marking up legislation for the coming fiscal
year. Against that backdrop, a reasonable person might conclude that
the Budget Committee would propose a resolution that stood a reasonable
chance of being expeditiously adopted.
Sadly, this is not the case. By radically departing from last year's
bipartisan budget accord, the House Republican leadership has managed
to totally isolate itself not just from the President and the Democrats
in Congress but also from their Senate counterparts and even many House
Republicans. Indeed, some of the harshest criticism of this budget has
come not from Democrats but from Republicans. In addition to Senator
Domenici's comments, Senator Stevens said that under the cuts proposed
in the Kasich budget, ``I don't think Congress could function.'' A
group of House Republicans wrote that the cuts proposed in the Kasich
budget are ``neither desirable nor attainable.''
Fortunately, there is a constructive alternative. Like the budget
passed by the Senate last month, the Spratt budget keeps faith with the
bipartisan Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The Spratt budget adheres to
the discretionary budget caps, offsets tax cuts within the revenue code
and pays for priority initiatives with reductions in entitlement
programs. Most importantly, by continuing to steer the path of fiscal
responsibility. The Spratt alternative fully safeguards the budget
surplus until Congress and the President enact legislation to ensure
the long term future of Social Security.
I say to my colleagues--especially on the other side of the aisle--
who wish to build upon the work of the 1997 budget agreement, to
reserve the surplus for Social Security, and to support a budget that
can be reconciled with the Senate and adopted, I urge you to support
the Spratt alternative.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Spratt
Amendment because it is a rational approach to meeting the needs of our
society. For example, it provides for 75,000 new teachers, it allows
people under 65 to buy into Medicare, $1.2 billion for child care and
early childhood education, $600 million for Medicaid, including an
outreach program for children and provides an option to cover all legal
immigrant children.
It provides for a patient Bill of Rights Act and tax credits for
businesses that provide child care services to their employees. It
saves all the budget surpluses for five years until a comprehensive
Social Security Financial Plan is agreed upon.
The Spratt Amendment is honest, responsible and addresses the needs
of the American People.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr. Spratt's
substitute to the misguided Republican budget resolution. Unlike the
Republican proposal, the Spratt substitute meets the requirements of
last year's balanced budget agreement without calling for the deep and
drastic cuts to critical programs, both mandatory and discretionary,
that the majority has included in its plan.
The Spratt substitute ensures that the needs of America's children
and working men and women will continue to be met, by providing for
billions more in education and training funding than the Republican
proposal. In addition, the Spratt budget provides health care funding
that will protect maternal and child health, enable the continuation of
important research at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers
for Disease Control, and provide grants under the Ryan White AIDS
program. Mr. Spratt's plan calls for law enforcement spending that will
help keep drugs off our streets and out of our communities, and that
will fund important crime reduction initiatives. And the substitute
provides increased funding for programs that will protect our precious
environment and natural resources.
Furthermore, the Spratt substitute includes several major initiatives
that will benefit our nation's children. The proposal provides funding
which would allow the hiring of 75,000 new teachers to reduce classroom
size, sets aside substantial funds for child care and early learning,
and includes a Medicaid outreach program for children. There is no more
important task than ensuring that the health and education needs of our
children are met, and I am pleased that the Spratt budget recognizes
this priority.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Spratt substitute.
it is not a perfect proposal, but it is one which will enable us to

[[Page H4219]]

move on with the budget process. This substitute, because of its close
similarities to the Senate budget resolution, its the best vehicle with
which to reach an agreement with the other body that will allow our
respective appropriations subcommittees to continue their difficult
tasks with a framework to guide them. Let us adopt this substitute,
keeping within the boundaries of last year's balanced budget agreement
and ensuring that our children, our working families, and our most
vulnerable citizens are protected rather than abandoned.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ney). All time has expired.
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 pro tempore 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 164,
noes 257, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 209]

AYES--164

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McNulty
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--257

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Salmon
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Ballenger
Bilbray
Furse
Gonzalez
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MA)
Lewis (GA)
McDade
Meek (FL)
Mollohan
Ros-Lehtinen
Sabo
Tanner

{time} 1427

Mr. DAVIS of Florida, and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. WISE, and Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island 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.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The question is on the amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, it is with great regret that I rise today to
oppose the Republican budget resolution and the Democratic substitute.
Unfortunately, both of these proposals stray from last year's historic
balanced budget agreement, and neither of them does enough to reduce
our national debt and ensure Social Security's solvency.
The Republican proposal is fiscally irresponsible and economically
unfeasible. Rather than following the guidelines of last year's
Balanced Budget Agreement, as did the Senate budget resolution, the
House Republicans have chosen to cut discretionary funding to such
programs as veterans health, long-term care for the elderly, and anti-
crime initiatives by over $45 billion. These cuts, according to Senate
Republicans including Budget Committee Chairman Domenici, are unwise
and would devastate many important programs for our nation's senior
citizens. These cuts, according to Senate Republicans, could derail the
budget process. Some--Republicans and Democrats--suggest that they
could lead to another government shutdown.
Furthermore, the House Republican budget does not preserve the
projected surplus for Social Security. Instead, it actually changes
budget rules to allow the surplus to be spent on new programs,
including tax cuts. Given our nation's $5.3 billion in debt (as of May
31, 1998), not allowing the surplus to be spent on paying off our debt
is harmful to our economy and to our taxpayers.
The Democratic budget alternative, while it is much more fiscally
prudent and sensible, still does not do enough to fit the guidelines of
last year's Balanced Budget Agreement. In my view, its new spending
should be devoted to deficit reduction.
The one budget proposal that would have met all these objectives--the
Blue Dog budget proposal--was not allowed to be considered on the House
Floor. Due to concerns that this budget resolution might garner enough
votes to defeat other proposals, the House Committee on Rules would not
allow this legislation to be brought to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, the Blue Dog Budget Resolution would have been good for
this Congress, and good for all Americans. I am proud to support it,
and disappointed that the will of Congress was not heard on this
important issue.
Outlined below are the specifics of the Blue Dog budget resolution:

general provisions

Saves 100% of the projected unified budget surplus ($24 billion in FY
99 and $225 billion over five years) for Social Security, and
recommends that the unified budget surplus be reserved to fund the
costs of Social Security reform legislation.
Reaffirms the principle that budget discipline should be maintained
until the budget is balanced without relying on the annual surplus in
the Social Security trust fund to mask an on-budget deficit.

[[Page H4220]]

Maintains discretionary spending at the levels included in the
bipartisan budget agreement. Provides increases in functions for
education, veterans, health care, research and other functions that
were designated as priority functions in the bipartisan budget
agreement. Allows for consideration of tax cuts if they are offset with
mandatory spending cuts or increases in other revenues. Does not change
budget rules to allow tax cuts to be offset by reductions in
discretionary spending.
Identifies mandatory offsets that were not included in the
transportation conference report that Congress could use to fund new
mandatory investments or deficit reduction.
Incorporates the changes in spending from the TEA-21 Conference
Report and conference report on S. 1150, the Agriculture Research,
Extension and Education Conference Report, as estimated by CBO, in
order to provide a credible budget blueprint that reflects the
realities of Congressional action.
Does not reopen Medicare, Medicaid, federal retirement and other
mandatory programs for additional reductions.
Does not count on revenues from tobacco legislation that many not
materialize, but preserves the flexibility of Congress to consider
tobacco legislation that provides funding for programs related to the
tobacco settlement.

social security

The Blue Dog budget saves 100% of the unified budget surplus for
Social Security. The resolution contains a strong statement that
Congress and the President should strive to truly balance the budget,
without using the surplus from the Social Security Trust Fund. The
resolution also states that Congress should use any accumulated or
projected unified budget surplus to pay for the transition costs of
Social Security reform.

Tax Cuts

The Senate Budget Resolution contained a tax cut reserve which would
allow--but not require--Congress to enact additional mandatory savings
and/or revenue increases for the purpose of tax cuts. The Blue Dog
alternative would clarify that Congress could also use additional
savings for debt reduction.

Mandatory Investments Reserve

The Senate budget resolution included a transportation spending
reserve that identified a variety of spending cuts that could be used
to pay for increased spending on highways and mass transit. The highway
conference report used most of the offsets identified in the Senate
resolution, but there were a few offsets identified in the Senate
resolution that were not used in the highway conference. The Blue Dog
alternative would change the transportation spending reserve into a
mandatory spending reserve that would allow--but not require--Congress
to use the unused offsets that Senator Domenici identified for
transportation (approximately $3.5 billion) for new mandatory
investments. As with the tax cut reserve, the alternative would not
spell out which, if any, initiatives Congress should fund with this
reserve. The Senate Budget Resolution, with which we concur, identified
the following area as key investments: child care, children's health
education and research.

Budgetary impact of the Transportation and Agriculture Research
Conference Agreements

The Blue Dog resolution incorporates the changes in spending from the
TEA-21 Conference Report and conference report on S. 1150, the
Agriculture Research, Extension and Education Conference Report, as
estimated by CBO. The Blue Dog substitute does not endorse or reject
the spending levels of the transportation bill, but incorporates the
costs of legislation already enacted by Congress into the budget
resolution in order to provide a credible budget blueprint. Likewise,
including the budgetary impact of the agriculture research conference
report is not an endorsement of the specific policies therein, but
simply reflects the budgetary impact of the anticipated passage of that
bill by increasing the allocation to Function 350, Agriculture and
reducing the allocation for Function 600, Income Security to that would
result from the enactment of S. 1150.

Discretionary budget priorities

The discretionary allocations in the substitute are virtually
identical to the Senate-passed resolution, with slight modifications
within the discretionary spending limits established by the budget
agreement. In response to the cut in spending for Veterans benefits in
the TEA-21 conference report, the Blue Dog substitute increases the
allocation for spending on discretionary programs in function 700,
Veterans Benefits and Compensation, to allow spending on veterans
health care to keep up with inflation. The Blue Dog resolution also
contains higher discretionary spending in Medicare than the Senate-
passed resolution by eliminating proposed fees on hospitals that are in
the Senate resolution and has higher funding for discretionary programs
in function 350, Agriculture and Rural Development.
These increases in discretionary allocations are offset by reducing
the allocations for function 250, Science, Space and Technology and
function 300, Natural Resources and the Environment below the
allocations in the Senate-passed resolution.
The Senate-passed resolution increased discretionary spending in both
of these functions substantially above the allocations in the Balanced
Budget Agreement; even with the reductions the Blue Dog substitute
still provides more funding in these functions than the budget
agreement.

Tobacco reserve

The Blue Dog substitute modifies the tobacco revenue reserve from the
Domenici resolution to allow for consideration of tobacco legislation
that used revenues from a tobacco settlement to fund programs related
to the tobacco settlement. The Blue Dog resolution would not make any
assumptions about the passage of tobacco legislation. The resolution
would simply include language establish a reserve fund that would allow
the budget allocations to be adjusted if Congress considers deficit
neutral tobacco legislation that uses the revenues from the tobacco
settlement to extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund and
address tobacco-related issues, such as providing assistance for
tobacco farmers and communities, creating smoking cessation and
prevention programs, curbing teenage smoking, assisting States with the
costs of treating tobacco-related illnesses, providing health care for
veterans with tobacco related illnesses and funding federal medical
research.

Medicare

The Blue Dog substitute includes a Sense of Congress provision
encouraging the Ways and Means Committee to consider budget-neutral
Medicare provisions that would address regional disparities in Medicare
reimbursements and to examine the concerns of the home health care and
hospital industries regarding implementation of Medicare policies.

CPI Accuracy

The Blue Dog resolution does not include any proposals regarding CPI,
but would contain a Sense of Congress provision encouraging BLS to
continue to improve the accuracy of the CPI, particular with regard the
remaining upper-level substitution bias.
Mr. Speaker, the Blue Dog proposal I have outlined today would have
been the sensible middle ground in the budget debate. The legislation
had bipartisan support--and its passage would have put an end to the
partisan rhetoric and demagoging that we have heard on this issue
today.
The American people want a budget--they do not want endless arguments
and political posturing. The Blue Dog budget would have provided
Congress with a reasonable compromise. It is indeed unfortunate that
the Republican majority did not allow its consideration today.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my deep and
serious concerns about the budget resolution brought to the floor today
by the Republican Leadership.
First, let me say that I have nothing but respect for my colleague
from Ohio, Mr. Kasich, and the work he has done during his tenure as
Chairman of the Budget Committee. However, I believe the budget
resolution produced by his committee follows a misguided set of
priorities and would move our country in the wrong direction.
I am particularly concerned about the large tax cuts called for in
this resolution. The measure provides for more than $100 billion in tax
cuts over the next five years. I feel that the best tax cut for the
American family is a balanced federal budget. Balancing the budget--and
keeping it balanced--leads to lower interest rates, more job creation,
and strong economic growth. With projections showing the federal budget
will be balanced for the first time in almost 30 years, we should not
risk returning to the era of deficit spending by enacting massive tax
cuts at this time.
I am also concerned about plans to pay for these tax cuts by cutting
more than $45 billion in discretionary spending. While I am
tremendously pleased that we have finally managed to balance the
budget, and I voted for the spending cuts enacted last year, we must
realize that discretionary spending has already absorbed crippling
cuts. In 1962, discretionary spending accounted for more than two-
thirds of all federal spending. Today, discretionary spending accounts
for about one-third of the federal budget, while mandatory spending
takes up just under two-thirds of the budget.
The budget resolution asks us to continue this trend by cutting more
than can be reasonably expected from discretionary spending programs,
while doing virtually nothing to reform the entitlement programs that
have grown so fast over the past thirty years.
Therefore, I believe we should resist calls to enact massive tax cuts
and focus instead on balancing the federal budget and keeping it
balanced. The spending cuts contained in last year's balanced budget
agreement kept us squarely on the path to fiscal responsibility, which
was begun in 1993. We will be far better off if we do nothing, and
stick to that agreement, than if we follow the recommendations
contained in the budget resolution we

[[Page H4221]]

are considering today. And if, as projected, this year's budget should
produce a surplus, I am committed to the following three priorities:
First, we should take steps to reform and provide for the long-term
fiscal health of Social Security, Medicare, and other federal
retirement programs without increasing the payroll tax.
Second, I believe it is absolutely imperative that we begin paying
down the massive federal debt. Since 1980, the gross federal debt has
grown more than five times in size to nearly $5.5 trillion. Today, the
debt is two-thirds the size of our nation's Gross Domestic Product, and
interest payments on the debt consume 15 cents of every dollar in
federal spending.
Think about how much better off we would be if this money did not
have to be spent on interest payments. For every $1 billion in debt we
retire, we would save $55 million each year in interest payments. Most
economists say that reducing the debt, and thereby shrinking interest
payments, would reduce interest rates, increase savings rates, keep the
tax burden down, and make more money available in both the public and
private sectors to fuel continued economic growth.
Finally, we should be investing more in this country's economic
infrastructure--such as roads, inland waterways, sewage treatment
plants, and airports--in order to make American workers and businesses
more productive and profitable.
Improving roads, updating sewer systems, modernizing airports, and
making sure our communications system is ready for the 21st century
enhances our international competitiveness and helps American workers
remain the most productive in the world.
Despite the obvious benefits, many infrastructure projects are not
receiving adequate funds or are simply being ignored. For instance, a
1995 Department of Transportation study found that nearly one-third of
the roads in this country are in poor or mediocre condition. The
Department of Defense estimates that it will be at least 12 years
before adequate housing can be built for every soldier in the U.S.
armed forces. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the federal
government will need to invest more than $275 billion to meet the
nation's water and sewer system needs over the next 20 years.
Mr. Speaker, we have a moral responsibility to provide a solid and
fiscally secure future for the generations that will follow us. The
Republican budget resolution fails to provide a bright future for our
children and grandchildren, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, as I stand here, I can't
decide whether people should be laughing or crying. Is it low farce or
dark tragedy to spend time doing the people's business debating a
budget that virtually everyone knows is already dead? Today we debate
the Budget Committee Majority's sorry, no account, buy today-pay
tomorrow, credit card budget. In doing so, most Members on both sides
of the aisle have been made reluctant participants in the spectacle of
arguing over a corpse.
The Republican leadership seems to have concluded that since we have
brought the budget deficit under control it is time to engage in the
same sort of shenanigans that got us that deficit in the first place.
And why not? Budget deficits have been very, very good to the
Republican majority.
Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore have brought us a smaller government and our
booming economy and the 1993 budget agreement have led to a balanced
budget. As a result, the Republicans don't have much reason for being.
They have become the one trick pony of American politics whose sole
excuse for political existence is to rail against irresponsible
government excess. It is hard to show excess if there isn't a deficit,
so Mr. Kasich's budget promises tax cuts today and pays for them with
unspecified, politically unpalatable spending reductions somewhere out
in the future. His budget would again put us on a path for deficits. I
guess the Republican leadership believes that they can slip this by
Americans with a lot of arm waving and thin promises of big tax cuts. I
think that our citizens are smarter than that.
If this budget were ever to become the official congressional
position, and I don't believe there is anyone in this room or in the
other body who thinks for a minute that it will, it would require that
we make radical cuts in transportation, housing, education and research
programs. These are the very programs that improve the quality of life
in this country today and promise a brighter life tomorrow. These are
the same programs we have been cutting and freezing and cutting again
for ten years as we wrestled with the deficit.
In Mr. Kasich's leaked plan his $100 billion in savings comes from
dredging up such tired old turkeys as eliminating the Departments of
Commerce and Energy and selling the Power Marketing Administrations--
proposals that have been debated and repudiated time and again. Over
five years, the Kasich plan would also have us terminate the advanced
technology program and manufacturing extension programs at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, cut NASA by one billion dollars,
cut energy research by four billion dollars and freeze the National
Science Foundation.
Mr. Kasich would cut funding for education and training programs by
$4.4 billion over five years. In housing, the Republicans would freeze
Section 8 funding leading to a cumulative $18.5 billion shortfall in
funding for these contracts through 2003. Flood insurance contributions
would be cut by $1.7 billion leading to higher premiums for those
living in flood plains and FHA would be cut by $2.2 billion over five
years.
The Kasich plan not only fails to provide for Transportation spending
increases this House just endorsed in the Transportation Equity Act,
but actually cuts budget authority for these programs by $23.3 billion
compared to the 1997 budget agreement. The image of this House
embracing a massive transportation increase before the recess, with
Members rushing home to brag about their pork, and then repudiating
that policy by voting for this budget when we come back from recess
reinforces the old adage that a week is a long time in politics. It
makes me wonder if there shouldn't be a media warning for C-SPAN
viewers that they could suffer whiplash from watching this body too
closely.

We have been told that the reaction to Mr. Kasich's plan was so
negative in his own party that it has been withdrawn. Now, instead of a
plan of savings, the House is offered a lame line about giving
Appropriators and Authorizers the freedom to find the savings on their
own. Our Appropriations Chairman apparently took the Budget Committee
at its word about having freedom. He has already issued his 302b
guidance to subcommittees based on last year's budget agreement rather
than the Kasich proposal. I guess we know what the Appropriators think
of the viability of this budget. Perhaps their view was shaped in part
by the public comments of the Chairman of the Budget Committee in the
other body, a self-described friend of Mr. Kasich, who has generously
described the House Republican proposal as a ``mockery.''
The Appropriations know what the rest of us know: this budget is an
irresponsible package that supporters try to make palatable by coyly
repeating that they are simply asking for a cut of one cent on every
dollar of federal spending. Mr. Kasich and his friends are not such
doe-eyed innocents as all that. They know that 70% of Federal spending
is off the table when it comes to talk of cuts. That means the $100
billion necessary to reach the tax cut goal will have to be
concentrated in just a handful of programs and those programs have been
the target of cut after cut during the last ten years. There is a
consensus, represented by last year's budget agreement, that investment
programs such as education, transportation and research cannot bear
further deep cuts. If there were the votes to do that, Mr. Kasich
wouldn't have been beaten into withdrawing his plan. But he was and he
has and for good reason. Instead of a plan, we have a dust storm of
platitudes. Well, platitudes won't cover the tab for $100 billion in
tax cuts.
Over the years there has been a lot of talk, especially from the
other side of the aisle, about truth in budgeting. If truth in
budgeting is more than a slogan, this House should unite in a
bipartisan rejection of the Budget Committee proposal. Defeat the
Kasich budget, embrace the Spratt alternative and give this House a
shred of credibility as we embark upon the appropriations process and
enter into budget conference with the Senate.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res.
284, the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution. Last summer, the Congress
and the President worked together to reach agreement on a balanced
budget for the first time in 30 years. This resolution breaks that
agreement. I cannot support this resolution, House Democrats will not
support this resolution, and the President will not support this
resolution. Even the Republican Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee
said this resolution is a ``mockery.''
Ths resolution includes drastic cuts in non-defense discretionary
spending. Even more outrageous than the magnitude of these cuts is the
fact that the resolution does not specify which programs will be cut or
by how much. However, the list of suggested cuts distributed by the
Budget Committee clearly reveals the intentions of the Republican
leadership.
The cuts are so broad and so sweeping that almost every American
would feel the impact of this budget resolution. This budget resolution
will gut environmental protections, law enforcement, low income
housing, and health care for uninsured children. And it does nothing to
protect Social Security. I'd like to list just a few examples of just
how extreme this resolution really is. The budget resolution:
Eliminates Americorps;
Cuts the federal commitment to Mass Transit programs, which we just
increased under the ISTEA reauthorization;
Freezes future spending on law enforcement, at the same time that
Republicans

[[Page H4222]]

argue that there is a lack of commitment to fight the war on drugs;
Ends the federal commitment under Title I which assists low-income
areas meet their education needs;
Ends the work of the Legal Services Corporation;
Ends federal support of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting;
Ends federal land acquisition programs;
Reduces the Children's Health Insurance Program, which was part of
last year's Balanced Budget Act, by 40 percent; and
Increases premiums for health insurance for all government employees.
Why are all these cuts necessary? Not to secure the future of Social
Security. Not to protect the solvency of Medicare. Not to make the
needed investment in our children's education. The cuts are ``needed''
so we can have another tax cut.
This is not a serious budget resolution. It is a empty political
gesture and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res.
284, the fiscal year 1999 Budget Resolution. This measure would have a
chilling effect on mandatory and nondefense discretionary spending, and
its proposed $101 billion tax cut is a poorly timed move as we enjoy a
stronger economy and budget surplus resulting from last year's Balanced
Budget Act.
Although I am strongly opposed to with H. Con. Res. 284, I want to
make clear that I support efforts to address the inequities in our tax
code caused by the so-called ``marriage penalty.'' I look forward to
being in a position to support legislation that ends the current
situation which requires some two-income married couples to pay more in
taxes when filing jointly than they would pay if not married.
This is not that legislation.
H. Con. Res. 284 calls for $101 billion in spending cuts over five
years. These reductions are separate and above those enacted in last
year's budget agreement, with every dollar of these additional cuts
coming from nondefense spending and all of the savings targeted for tax
cuts. Of the spending cuts proposed $56 billion would be slashed from
entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid and $45 billion from
nondefense discretionary programs.
The $12 billion Medicaid cut will exacerbate the negative effects of
last year's $10 billion cut in the program. The state of California is
still struggling to provide health care to the poor and indigent,
especially the many uninsured and Medicaid patients in Los Angeles
County. These cuts could jeopardize the health service delivery reforms
that the County has struggled to make under its current Medicaid
waiver.
The resolution's Medicare cuts may also jeopardize the Health Care
Financing Administration's (HCFA) ability to effectively administer the
program, particularly since Medicare's administrative budget is already
insufficient to meet the Agency's new responsibilities under the
Balanced Budget Act.
With respect to the discretionary cuts, the proposed reductions
include $290 million from important programs like the National Health
Service Corps, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, and
health professions' education. The GOP budget cuts $4.4 billion from
crucial education programs like the Title I program for disadvantaged
children, and recommends a voucher program which will only serve to
undermine our public educational system.
The GOP budget resolution reneges on last year's budget agreement.
While not perfect, the 1997 budget bill was the product of months of
very difficult negotiations between the White House and congressional
leaders. We must say no to these new cuts which will harm the most
vulnerable of our citizens and threaten our current budget surplus by
voting down the Kasich bill.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget.
However, although this budget makes no recommendation on the funding of
the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) non-power programs, I believe
that this Congress should carefully review two important new government
studies of these programs.
TVA's non-power functions cover dam safety, reservoir management,
water quality, and natural resource management, recreation, commercial
navigation, environmental cleanup and other programs. Last year,
Congress appropriated $70 million along with the Appropriations
Committee issuing report language claiming that TVA ratepayers should
be expected to fund the non-power programs beginning in fiscal year
1999.
Recently, however, both the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have issued reports within the
past month reviewing the nature of TVA's non-power programs. Both of
these reports conclude that TVA is performing services that are clearly
federal responsibilities.
In many cases, these are services currently performed by the Corps of
Engineers elsewhere in the country and paid for out of the federal
treasury.
It is simply not fair to the taxpayers of the Tennessee Valley region
to ask them to pay for items that are clearly federal stewardship
responsibilities in their own area through higher power rates, while at
the same time taxing the people of the Tennessee Valley to pay for
these same services that the federal government provides everywhere
else in the country.
The OMB report concludes that ``In the Administration's view, the no-
power programs that TVA now operates are essential for prudent
stewardship of the resources TVA manages.'' The report further states
that TVA programs continue to be important to the Tennessee Valley
region and the country.''
It is my hope that in the interest of fairness and equity, this
Congress will continue to appropriate funds for the federal stewardship
responsibilities performed by TVA just as this Congress accepts and
appropriates funds for these same responsibilities elsewhere in the
United States.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget
which will move this nation in the right direction. It provides
important tax relief for my constituents, including eliminating the
marriage penalty which makes married couples pay higher taxes just
because they are married. The marriage penalty is morally wrong and I
am pleased that we are moving forward to eliminate this unfair tax.
This budget provides tax relief while funding programs that are very
important to the 15th District of Florida. In particular, I am pleased
that the budget provides stable funding for NASA, by funding NASA at
least as high as the president's budget. On page 164 of the budget, it
states that the budget, ``Assumes the administration's funding levels
for NASA.'' This will guarantee stable funding for the Space Shuttle,
Space Station and other critical NASA programs important to my
constituents who work at Kennedy Space Center (KCS). I thank the
Chairman for hearing my request on behalf of my constituents and
responding positively.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I, like most Members of the House,
strongly oppose the Republican Leadership's budget, because it betrays
the values of working American families on several fronts. We have
heard of the painful cuts to seniors' and children's programs. But just
as devastating are the cuts in environmental protection, in particular
the cleanup of our nation's 1,300 toxic waste sites--known as Superfund
sites.
As a representative from New Jersey, which has 117 of these 1,300
sites--more than any other state, I am offended by this blatant
disregard for the health and safety of those families that are forced
to live every day with the threat of a Superfund site in their midst.
One in every four Americans, including 10 million children below the
age of 12, now live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. These sites can
pose serious health and environmental risks to surrounding
communities--and particularly children. Fifty percent of the Superfund
sites assessed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
in fiscal years 1993 through 1996 were classified as definite public
health hazards, and another 30 percent were of indeterminate hazard.
Already this year, cleanup work at up to 171 of these Superfund sites
around the country has been delayed due to the Republicans' refusal to
provide the funding necessary to expedite cleanups. This includes
cleanups at sites in 44 of the 50 states--and three sites in my
district alone.
And now with the Kasich budget and its $5 billion cut in
environmental spending, the Republicans are asking 1 in every 4
Americans to hold on--and live with that nearby Superfund site just a
little bit longer. The Republicans are telling 1 in every 4 Americans,
including 10 million American children, that cleaning up these toxic
sites is simply a luxury we can't afford, something that the federal
budget simply does not have room for.
Democrats want to speed up the cleanups of these public health
threats. We want to fund the Superfund program at a level at which two-
thirds of all toxic waste sites in the country will be cleaned up by
the year 2001.
I urge my colleagues, on behalf of 1 in every 4 Americans, to vote
for a healthy environment for our children and against the Republican
Leadership's budget.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, this week, the House considers the
Republican Leadership's Budget Resolution for FY '99 (H. Con. Res.
284). The Budget Committee approved a resolution on May 20, 1998 by a
margin of 22-16 with every Democratic Member opposing the measure.
While I could not have come to this floor to support the Committee-
passed resolution, what is before the House today is even worse than
the product that the Republicans voted out of Committee.
Today's Budget resolution is a cruel and direct attack on the least
advantaged Americans. It shows the majority party's true colors.

[[Page H4223]]

They are willing to make our children pay the price for their politics
in three significant ways:
The government infrastructure that benefits the common good and each
individual family--our schools, our environment, our park systems, our
crime fighting programs--is cut to the bone.
Programs providing a safety net for the neediest families with
children are gutted. A $10 billion cut in the Budget category 600
translates into a 25% cut in budget authority for Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families.
The proposal to spend $100 billion today on tax breaks for the
wealthy to please voters at November's polls instead of investing it
for Medicare and Social Security solvency will only devastate our
future federal budgets--and our children will pay the price.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that it is not the
role of government to help the downtrodden, the disabled, the children
who happened to be born into families without means.
But is it the role of government to hurt them? That's just what this
resolution would do.
This budget must be viewed in the context of the economy. We know
that this era of prosperity has passed many Americans by. Although we
have had a long period of economic recovery, our economy has not been
that robust until the last year or two. In fact, during the first three
years of the recovery (1991 to 1993), 80% of Americans experienced
declines in income.
As the economy grew more robust during the Clinton administration,
workers experienced some income gains but, in spite of these more
recent gains, the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen.
Improvements in wages were just not enough to erase 20 years of falling
and stagnating wages.
Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities dramatically demonstrates this growing income inequality in
48 out of 50 states:
Between the late 1970s and the mid-1990s, the incomes of upper-income
families with children increased in every state. On average, incomes of
the richest fifth of families increased by 30%, or nearly $27,000,
after adjusting for inflation. In sharp contrast, incomes of the
poorest families with children decreased in 44 states in this period.
The decline in the real incomes of the poorest families with children
averaged 21 percent, or $2,500.
In the U.S. as a whole, Census data shows that the poorest 20% of
families with children had an average family income of $9,250 in the
mid-1990s, while the average income of families in the top 20% of
income distribution was $117,500, or 13 times as large.

The income gap is not just between rich and poor. The gap has also
increased between middle class and high income families between the
late 1970s and the mid-1990s. By the mid-1990s, there were 40 states
where the gap between the highest income 20 percent of families and the
middle 20 percent of families with children was larger than it had been
for any state during the 1970s.
This data is clear: economic prosperity has not been broadly shared
in America. The poverty rate for children has not declined. More than
one in five children lives in poverty. Although children represent one-
fourth of the population, they comprise nearly 40% of the people living
in poverty.
Nor has the pain of budget choices been broadly shared. Under this
Budget plan, the young and the poor bear the pain, and the rich share
the gain.
The Leadership's Budget cuts domestic spending by $101 billion over
the next five years--a 19% reduction below the amount needed to keep up
with inflation by the year 2003.
This is a huge cut below the already tight spending levels approved
in last year's budget agreement. And, since the Republican budget does
not include funding for the highway bill, the actual cuts would be even
deeper.
More than 40% of the cuts fall on low-income families, even though
these programs make up only 23% of all mandatory spending.
The Republican budget cuts Medicaid and children's health by $12
billion, and cuts education by $5.7 billion over five years.
The most insidious cut of all is the cut in the budget category 600.
This category includes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
program (TANF).
The TANF block grant replaced AFDC, the JOBS program, and Emergency
Assistance.
Cutting TANF reduces the funds states have to spend on providing
basic supports for children. It also reduces state funds to pay for
caseworkers to assist families making the transition from welfare to
work. It reduces the funds to assure needy families with children
obtain the education, training and employment assistance they need to
help them become self-sufficient and avoid long-term welfare
dependence.
If the TANF block grant budget authority is cut from $16.4 billion to
$12.4 billion each year to achieve $2 billion in outlay savings, as CBO
estimates, and all the cuts came from TANF assistance: Benefits for all
TANF families could be reduced by about 25% which would require the
``average'' welfare family of 3 to live on about $275 a month; benefits
for about one-quarter of TANF families could be eliminated ending
assistance for approximately 1.5 million children; and basic education
and job skills training needed for parents to become employable could
be reduced or eliminated for up to 2.9 million parents trying to get
back to work.
States would have $10.2 billion less over 5 years to make the promote
job preparation to get families off of public assistance, to prevent
and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and to provide
child care for needy children.

In spite of our budget surplus and beyond our targets agreed to in
the Balanced Budget Act, this resolution cuts to the quick every way
our government works to make life better for Americans.
Why? So we can give $100 billion in tax cuts and still have a
balanced budget?
The Chairman of Ways and Means has floated various tax cuts but they
all disproportionately help the upper bracket folks: estate tax relief,
deeper capital gains cuts, exclusions for interest and dividends,
reductions in the alternative minimum tax and marriage penalty relief.
Even the accelerated deductions for health insurance provide more
relief for those in the upper brackets than for taxpayers with lower
wages.
The tax cuts are unfair and unwise when we know we must address
solvency issues in both Medicare and Social Security.
In keeping with our vote today on school prayer, I hope I can reach
the hearts and minds of my colleagues with a story about Moses.
About 3000 years ago, Moses interpreted the Pharaoh's dream of 7 fat
cattle and 7 starving cattle as a prediction that Egypt would have 7
years of feast, and then 7 years of famine. Like a wise ruler, the
Pharaoh saved some of the surplus of the 7 good years, so that the
people of Egypt could survive the 7 years of famine.
That was a pretty big gamble the Pharaoh took, relying on someone
else's interpretation of a dream.
He could have made everyone happy for 7 years and seen his approval
ratings reach deity levels. He could have abolished the tax code and
built and built a few extra pyramids for his best friends. Instead of
the 3 pyramids of Egypt, he could have had 4 or 5. He could have built
a dozen sphinxes.
But no, he was wise, and saved for a possible disaster--and the
disaster came.
We don't need Moses to analyze the demographics in America.
We know that our current surpluses are temporary and will turn to
deficits. We know that Medicare and Social Security will either have to
be cut or taxes raised in the next 10 years. We also know that we can
make the problem infinitely easier to solve if we save today's
surpluses for tomorrow's shortfalls.
God doesn't have to give us a dream for us to figure out the right
policy here.
If we don't pass a budget that saves for future needs, our children
will wonder if we were so dumb that we could not to see the obvious
coming--or just too foolish not to prepare for it.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this budget that guts safety net
programs for our children so that it can give tax breaks to the
wealthy. I urge my colleagues to reject it as well.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution is an outrage. If it
were not for the seriousness of the subject, this proposal would be
laughable. Surely no responsible legislator on either side of the aisle
can vote for this resolution.
Let's look at just one of the worst things this budget proposes to
do: destroy the Medicaid program and cripple the child health program
written with such fanfare only last year.
This budget slashes those programs by $12 billion dollars over the
next five years. That's actually $2 billion more than the Balanced
Budget Act took from Medicaid. And every one of the Members in this
House--certainly every one on the Commerce Committee--remembers how
difficult and painful those cuts were.
Now this budget says let's do it again.
How do they think that can be accomplished? Well, the May 12 document
suggested block granting the acute care part of the program; that's the
code word for taking away the entitlement to services that elderly and
disabled people, pregnant women and kids, rely on to get decent medical
care and nursing home services.
And nobody should be fooled into thinking the long term care part of
the program would be spared. The actual budget proposal takes more than
twice as much money out of Medicaid as the May 12 document assumed--so
it is obvious that all the protections in all parts of the program--
including nursing home care--are on the chopping block.
Some people must have some pretty short memories around here. Maybe
they've forgotten that when you do this to Medicaid, you are

[[Page H4224]]

saying to widows that there's no Federal protections to keep spouses
from being impoverished when their husband or wife goes into a nursing
home. That you are saying to people in nursing homes that the Federal
Government washes its hands of any responsibility for decent quality,
staffing and services in nursing homes.
Maybe they've forgotten that it means saying to low-income Medicare
beneficiaries that they won't be able to rely on help from Medicaid for
services like prescription drugs or help with their cost sharing and
premiums. Why the May 12 document says specifically that it would
``grant Governors the flexibility to determine how best to address
provisions for beneficiaries with overlapping benefits.'' That's
shorthand for saying there's no more Federal guarantee that poor
Medicare beneficiaries will get any extra help.
Or should we assume that Mr. Kasich and his majority at the Budget
Committee think States will just cut services for kids instead?
Is that the policy they want us to endorse?
Let's see, what else could they have in mind. Do they mean to slash
the DSH program so there's nothing left? Or just let people be pushed
in managed care plans with a totally inadequate capitation rate? That's
certainly an effective way to undermine any quality care in those
settings.
All this is made more outrageous because we already slashed this
program last year. We've already seen such a dramatic slowing of the
growth in the numbers of people covered by Medicaid that it's virtually
flat.
We've got a surplus, for heaven sakes. But the philosophy behind this
budget seems to be, well let's cut taxes anyway, and let poor people
bear the brunt of paying for it. Because in this budget, it's programs
for poor people that take the massively disproportionate share of the
cuts.
This is idiocy. It's mean spirited, it's indefensible. If you vote
for this budget, you might as well just say flat out to poor widows and
poor kids in your district and all over the country--forget any
guarantee of decent medical care. Forget any protections in Medicaid.
There's lots of other reasons to vote against this budget. But what
it does to Medicaid is reason enough. Vote no.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the GOP
Budget Resolution reported out of the Rules Committee. In this
Resolution the GOP Majority has turned its back on the commitment and
coherent budget agreement Congress crafted last year. The GOP reneges
and risks our recent success toward balancing the budget and
maintaining investment in areas of critical need to our nation and
people. Instead, the GOP Majority has opted to put forth a measure
which will force massive cuts in areas important to our nation's future
such as health care, child care, education and the environment. This is
not governing. This Republican budget clearly demonstrates
irresponsibility, abandons the promise to save Social Security first,
kills important investments in our children's future and clearly
neglects the American people.
The Majority Budget Resolution will cut an additional $101 billion
below last year's budget agreement in people's programs. Although the
Republican rhetoric attempts to characterize such cuts as simply being
I cent out of every dollar over the next 5 years, the reality is much
more alarming than their rhetoric would lead Americans to believe. It
takes billions from people's programs, Medicaid, TANF, education,
veterans medical benefits, crime fighting efforts and natural
resources. Furthermore, the GOP Budget does not add up. At a time when
our country is in its greatest period of economic growth, when the
budget deficit is on the way to elimination due to the major work done
by the Democratic Majority in Congress and President Clinton in 1993--
without a single GOP vote--and a surplus of $40 billion is projected
this year 1998, congress should be seizing this opportunity. We should
offer a 1999 budget which invests in working families and provides the
tools and resources that increase the ability of all people to thrive
in our nation's booming economy and has a paramount focus on insuring
Social Security and Medicare's long-term viability. Instead, we have a
GOP budget that miserably fails this test and our country.
The proposals contained in this Budget Resolution continue the
Republican's war against health care. Last year, congress set our
Medicare reductions of $115 billion for five years. Initial provisions
in this year's GOP Budget proposal sought more than $22 billion in yet
new cuts to Medicare and Medicaid on top of what is already set out in
law. The Republicans planed to use these new cuts to finance a tax cut
for America's wealthiest taxpayers. Only after intense criticism from
within their own party and Democrats, the GOP Leadership opted to drop
the Medicare cuts, but not the cuts which savage Medicaid. And the new
children's health care program. This change relays a negative message
to the elderly and the low income families and the disabled who were
promised and deserve quality health care.
The Republican Budget cuts $5 billion from natural resources and
environmental protection programs. this is money that could be used for
the Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund, our National Parks,
National Forests and Wildlife Refuges, protecting endangered species
and funding important environmental cleanup. Protecting the environment
and preserving the earth's natural resources should be a top priority
in congress. A close look at this budget leads to the conclusion that
the GOP Majority is indifferent to its stewardship responsibilities to
this nation and land.
Last year's Balanced Budget Agreement explicitly assumed full funding
for all Section 8 Housing expiring contracts through 2002. However,
this year's budget fails to maintain the number of households who
currently receive assistance by refusing to allocate funding for
existing Section 8 contracts as they expire. This simply is a broken
promise. Failure to renew expiring contracts will not only reduce the
number of assisted households, it could force currently assisted
tenants to face sharp rent increases, displacement or eviction.
In response to the concerns of the growing number of people whose
Section 8 housing contracts that are scheduled to expire, the
Republicans included no outlays for that purpose in their Budget,
virtually making the budget authority unusable. Furthermore, according
to the Congressional Budget Office, a freeze in renewing Section 8
contracts would ultimately mean one million households would lose
federal housing vouchers and certificates by 2003. Today, rental
housing assistance provides Section 8 tenant-based and project-based
programs to over 3 million households. Forty-six percent of this total
are working class families with children and 32% are elderly. This will
force needy persons into the streets and into homelessness.
In addition, the Republican plan slashes education programs by $5.7
billion over the next 5 years. It eliminates direct federal funding to
school district by repealing Title I grants and suggests that such
programs be made into some sort of vouchers. These grants are essential
in providing supplementary education and related services in low-
achieving children attending schools with relatively high
concentrations of pupils from low-income families. These additional
cuts deprive our elementary and secondary schools of much needed
resources that could be used for more teachers in our classrooms and
internet access for all schools.
Furthermore, the Republican budget freezes every program it does not
cut, specifically veterans' medical care, law enforcement, Superfund
and Head Start. This adds up to real cuts when even a lowered inflation
rate will depreciate the level support provided in this Budget
blueprint. The reality is that 40% of these cuts impact hard working,
low-income families that deserve our help and encouragement not the
shabby treatment accorded in this GOP budget blueprint.
Moreover, just last night the Republicans dropped a special provision
allowing Congress to use the anticipated budget surpluses on a
convoluted, untested proposal offered by the Speaker: ``private
retirement accounts.'' Such accounts are a unilateral, premature,
partisan maneuver that is intended to superimpose this idea in place of
a bipartisan agreement to truly strengthen and save Social Security
first.
Deciding now to use the surpluses for tax incentive private accounts
before addressing Social Security's long-term problems would siphon off
resources that will be needed to maintain the solvency of the Social
Security Trust Fund. Budget surpluses should be reserved until a Social
Security Commission, the President, and the Congress address the long-
term requirements of Social Security. This represents just another step
in the Republican agenda to eliminate the Social Security Insurance
program and squander away the projected budget surplus upon half baked
schemes. While abandoning the specifics it is still the intent of this
budget to tax expend the dollars, so one bad idea may just be replaced
with another and have a similar impact of disregarding the commitment
to save Social Security first.
Overall, this budget fails to meet the needs of the American people.
The Republicans are a majority in Congress; it is their responsibility
to put forward a plan that can actually be implemented and to govern.
Because the Republican plan cuts so deeply and unfairly, and because it
deviates so markedly from last year's bipartisan budget agreement, it
hopefully stands little chance of being implemented. Attempts to
implement it will ensure confrontation with the GOP Senate,
Presidential opposition and a strong no vote from most Democrats.
After forty five days late without a budget proposal, the nation has
a right to expect the GOP Congress to step forward with a sound budget
plan--a budget that is not just another political, partisan scheme
loaded with the tax break promises for special interest groups, more
punitive, punishing cuts on the working

[[Page H4225]]

poor and undercutting retirement, health and education programs so
vital to our constituents' and nation's future. It seems that this GOP
led Congress would blow a free lunch after they were handed a working
model crafted by the gutsy votes of 1993 Clinton/Democrat Congress.
That proposal has changed the economic path from deficits as far as the
eye can see to an economic path based upon sound economics and a
surplus this year and hopefully in to the future.
Here we go again. After last year's tax breaks and budget deal the
GOP majority reneges in the name of an election issue. The Republicans
attempt to break the 1997 Budget agreement and attempt to make a virtue
of tax breaks for the special interests and breaking faith with Social
Security and Medicare. Make no mistake about it this will break the
budget. This is the same old GOP tax break siren song that the band
plays when the GOP is asked why the numbers didn't add up--Play it
again, Sam!
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res.
284, the budget resolution offered by the Chairman of the House Budget
Committee. I believe that this budget plan is seriously flawed.
Thr proposed budget resolution would cut $101 billion in federal
programs over the next 5 years in order to finance a tax cut of
comparable magnitude. I am concerned that spending cuts of such size--
in the wake of the budget cuts of recent years--would have a powerful
negative impact on my district that would not in any way be justified
by the benefits that the proposed tax cut could provide. I am
especially concerned about the impact that this level of program cuts
would have on the most vulnerable members of our society--children,
seniors, the sick, and the poor. Our top priority must be to--at
least--maintain the existing federal safety net for those individuals
who desperately need it.
Moreover, it is my understanding that while the report on the budget
resolution recommends that some or all of the spending cuts be used to
eliminate the marriage penalty, the bill does not do that, nor would it
take $101 billion in savings to do so. While the Budget Committee
report on H. Con. Res. 284 is rather vague, it seems likely that much
of the savings from the $101 billion in proposed spending cuts would be
used for the kinds of tax cuts for the rich that usually characterize
Republican tax legislation. In fact, H. Con. Res. 284 would not
actually eliminate the marriage penalty in the tax code. The report
only urges the Ways and Means Committee to use the savings produced by
the resolution to eliminate the marriage penalty. The Committee--and
Congress--would in no way be bound to do so.
I want to make it completely clear that I support efforts to address
the marriage penalty in the tax code--I am a cosponsor of legislation
that would make just such a change--but that the proposed level of
spending cuts are not necessary to address the marriage penalty.
Nor do I believe that we should pay for tax cuts for the rich by
cutting important federal education programs, infrastructure programs,
environmental protection programs, research programs, anti-poverty
programs, and health care programs. Some of the cuts assumed by this
budget resolution would harm the most needy members of our society and
rapidly reduce the quality of life in many of our communities. Other
assumed cuts--like those eliminating critical investments in federal
research, education, and infrastructure programs--would in the long run
prove to be counterproductive; such federal programs are necessary in
order to maximize our nation's future economic growth. Moreover, many
of the program cuts and eliminations assumed in this budget resolution
have been considered and rejected repeatedly by Congress in previous
years. If the Members consider the implications of this budget
carefully, I am certain that a majority of them will reject it.
I have a number of other serious concerns about this budget
resolution. It is back-loaded--all the painful cuts would take place in
the out-years after the November elections. It would change the pay-as-
you-go provisions of the Budget Act that have helped to impose the
necessary fiscal discipline on Congress. And, finally, it contains none
of the President's important initiatives on education, child care,
health care, and the environment.
In short, this bill has a number of major flaws. The bill does too
little to preserve Social Security. The spending cuts in this budget
resolution are excessive and unwise. Many of the specific spending cuts
that are assumed in the resolution have been rejected before. And,
finally, while Congress should address the marriage penalty, it could
do so without the level of spending and tax cuts proposed in this
budget resolution. For these and the other reasons described above, I
oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this
unwise, irresponsible legislation.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, it is highly likely that there will be a
budget surplus of no less than 50 billion dollars for the coming budget
year. For the first time in many decades there will be a window of
opportunity to make meaningful federal investments in education.
Unfortunately, the federal share of the overall expenditures for
education is merely seven percent at present. This budget surplus
offers an opportunity to bolster our national security by increasing
the pool of brainpower to operate our increasingly complex society. I
propose that the new budget surplus be divided in accordance with clear
national priorities. One fourth of the surplus should be set aside for
social security; one fourth should be used to give tax relief to
families earning less than 50,000 dollars a year; one fourth should be
allocated for direct emergency funding for school construction; and one
fourth should be invested in other education priorities such as smaller
class sizes, education technology, books, equipment, etc. This
represents a worthy budget deal which should immediately be placed on
the table for discussion and debate. We need an open debate on the best
use for the surplus. What American voters should fear is a closed door,
smoke-filled room deal in October with only representatives of the
Republican controlled Appropriations Committees (House and Senate) and
the White House present. A multibillion dollar deal is going to be
made. Let this deal be done in the sunshine. Let's do a deal for the
children of America.

do the budget deal now

Start acting real
Right now do a democratic deal
Do this magic surplus deal
Upfront right away
Chase infected cynics
Off the political highway
Make humane rules
Build safe schools
Start acting real
Right now do the deal
Sunshine is now okay
Act fast in the light of day
Invest it the people's way
Stop pushing the no touch lie
In four pieces cut the pie
Start acting real
Right now do the deal
Vote for children's justice fast
Make up for the stupid past
The budget is on even keel
Upfront right away
Do this magic surplus deal.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Boehner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ney, Chairman pro tempore 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. 284) revising the congressional budget for the
United States Government for fiscal year 1998, establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
1999, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, pursuant to House Resolution 455, he
reported the concurrent resolution back to the House with an amendment
adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent
resolution, as amended.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 216,
nays 204, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 210]

YEAS--216

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss

[[Page H4226]]

Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--204

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Souder

NOT VOTING--13

Ballenger
Furse
Gonzalez
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MA)
LaFalce
Lewis (GA)
McDade
Mollohan
Paul
Ros-Lehtinen
Sabo
Tanner

{time} 1446

Mr. HILL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________