Summary:
All articles in House section
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2001
(House of Representatives - March 23, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H1291-H1326]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 446 ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 446
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the concurrent resolution (
H. Con. Res. 290) establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2001, revising the congressional budget for the
United States Government for fiscal year 2000, and setting
forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years
2002 through 2005. The first reading of the concurrent
resolution shall be dispensed with. Points of order against
consideration of the concurrent resolution for failure to
comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII are waived. General
debate shall not exceed three hours, with two hours of
general debate confined to the congressional budget equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget, and one hour of
general debate on the subject of economic goals and policies
equally divided and controlled by Representative Saxton of
New Jersey and Representative Stark of California or their
designees. After general debate the concurrent resolution
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original concurrent
resolution for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute
rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in
part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All
points of order against the amendment printed in part B of
the report are waived except that the adoption of an
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the
conclusion of consideration of amendments to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent
resolution for amendment and a final period of general
debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall rise and report
the concurrent resolution to the House with such amendment as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the concurrent resolution or to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final
adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered
by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to
section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question
of its adoption.
[[Page
H1292]]
Sec. 2. Rule XXIII shall not apply with respect to the
adoption by the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2001.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate on this issue only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 446 is a structured rule, which is
fairly typical for bringing forward the annual congressional budget
resolution. For a number of years, we have gotten into the very good
habit of managing debate on the budget by asking that all amendments be
drafted in the form of substitutes so that Members could consider the
whole picture as we debate and weigh our spending priorities. This rule
continues that tradition and wisely so.
We have gone to great lengths with this rule to juggle the competing
needs of having a full debate on a range of issues and perspectives
without allowing the process to become so unwieldy that it breaks down
of its own weight.
In that regard, I think the rule is fair in making in order five
substitute amendments reflecting an array of points of view.
Specifically, the rule provides for 3 hours of general debate, with 1
hour specifically designated for discussion of economic goals and
policies as described by the Humphrey-Hawkins provisions of the current
law.
Two hours of the debate time shall be equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Budget, and 1 hour shall be equally divided and controlled by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark).
The rule waives clause 4(a) of rule XIII, requiring a 3-day layover
of the Committee report, against consideration of the resolution. The
rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed
in Part A of the Committee on Rules report as an original concurrent
resolution for the purpose of amendment.
This new base text makes a number of technical and substantive
changes to the underlying resolution, changes that were discussed and
negotiated throughout the day yesterday. This text is available to
Members in the Committee on Rules report, which was filed last night.
The rule waives all points of order against this amendment. The rule
further makes in order only those amendments printed in Part B of the
Committee on Rules report. I would note that, of those five substitutes
I mentioned, four are sponsored by Members of the minority.
Those amendments may be offered only in the order specified in the
report, only by a Member designated in the report, and they shall be
considered as read, they shall be debatable for the time specified in
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and they shall not be subject to amendment.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendments except
that, if an amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted, it is
not in order to consider further substitutes.
The rule provides for a final period of general debate not to exceed
10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on the Budget to occur upon conclusion of
consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment.
The rule permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to offer
amendments in the House necessary to achieve mathematical consistency.
Finally, the rule suspends the application of House Rule XXIII
relating to the establishment of the statutory limit on the public debt
with respect to the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
2001.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the effort of our congressional majority, we
have emerged from decades of deficits; and we are now operating in a
brave new world of surplus. But that does not mean we can or should now
abandon our commitment to fiscal discipline. In fact, it is when the
sky looks most blue that we should be thinking about how best to shovel
out from the mountain of debt we have incurred and prepare for the next
rainy day, which inevitably we know will come.
So I am delighted to be bringing forward to the House, House
Concurrent Resolution 290, the fiscal year 2001 fiscal budget
blueprint. This document, although not binding as a law, sets forth the
guideposts that will dictate the path we take for the rest of this
session of Congress as we complete our budgeting work.
The budget reflects conservative principles and lays the groundwork
for continued success in our mission of paying down the debt,
protecting Social Security, shoring up Medicare, strengthening the
national defense and education, and offering meaningful tax relief to
our seniors, our families, and our small businesses.
{time} 1100
This budget outlines $1 trillion in deficit reduction while taking
the Social Security trust fund completely off the table and while
opening the door for Congress to provide realistic prescription drug
coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. At the same time, we have gone
further than the President in the area of defense, something that is so
critical in this changing world and at a time when we are asking so
much of our men and women in uniform and those in our intelligence
activities.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and his
committee for the work they have done. I particularly share their
interest from a process standpoint in seeking ways to enforce the
fiscal discipline this budget document outlines. I am delighted that we
have been able to work out an arrangement that meets the concerns of
some Members about setting aside surplus moneys up front for further
debt reduction even while we make sure that we have provided the
resources necessary so the appropriators can bring forward legislation
that brings to life our commitments in key areas.
This rule brings that negotiation to fruition, and we have now put in
place a process so that the issue of debt reduction will continue to be
addressed as we move through this year's spending process. That is good
news all around for all Americans. This is a fair rule. I urge Members
to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
This resolution has never seen the light of day. This is not the
resolution that the Committee on the Budget worked over for a few
months. It is certainly not the resolution that the Committee on Rules
held hearings on for several hours yesterday. In fact, I have talked to
Members who have been here much longer than I, and they can recall no
time in which a bill has come to the floor under those circumstances.
It arrived at 2 in the morning, hours after the final vote when the
majority of the Members of this House had left the Hill. The ink will
barely be dry when the leadership makes Members vote on this document.
How many Members will see this new substitute before they have to vote?
I would note that these are not technical changes. The majority has
added $3 billion for science, still below what the President requested.
The new resolution calls for $5 billion in unspecified cuts all to be
announced later, and this is a travesty. The measure changes
reconciliation numbers and includes two new points of order. It even
changes the public debt limit though the rules of the House prohibit
changing that number from what is reported by the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road with this budget process
time and time again. The leadership in this body reminds me of the
bridal contestants in the television show ``Who wants to marry a
millionaire.'' They know it is a charade, but they are going through
the motions anyway. This budget is as unrealistic as the failed budgets
from
[[Page
H1293]]
1998 and 1999. This proposed budget by the majority maintains a single-
minded obsession with large tax cuts. It does nothing to extend the
solvency of Social Security and Medicare for a single day and cuts
funding for critical education, housing, and environmental protection
programs.
In 1998, the majority party in the House and Senate failed to pass a
budget resolution for the first time since the creation of the
congressional budget process. In 1999, the budget adopted by the
majority called for draconian cuts in appropriations to finance a huge
$792 billion tax cut for the wealthy. This budget was disregarded by
the majority almost as soon as they began the appropriations process.
When the final appropriations bill passed Congress in November, 2
months into the fiscal year, appropriated spending overran the budget
resolution by $43.8 billion. In both 1998 and 1999, the American people
rejected these same unrealistic cuts in essential Federal spending and
excessive tax cuts for the very rich. Why on earth does the majority
party believe the American people will suddenly change their minds and
reject essential government services like Social Security and Medicare
in favor of benefits for the wealthiest among us?
The definition of folly is to repeat what has failed and expect it to
succeed, and that is just what this resolution does. It assumes that
Congress will cut nondefense spending by $7 billion below this year's
level and by $20 billion below the level needed to make up for
inflation. Congress must then keep its foot on the brake for 4 more
years, eventually taking nondefense spending $114 billion below the
level of current purchasing power.
Compounding the problem of calling for implausible program cuts is
the fact that the resolution already spends some of the Social Security
surplus. The resolution's $200 billion tax cuts overwhelm the $114
billion reduction in the purchasing power of domestic appropriations.
As a result under the resolution, the non-Social Security surplus is
virtually gone by the year 2003. By 2004, the Government begins
spending the Social Security surplus. And by 2010, the measure spends
$68 billion of the Social Security money.
We have a choice. We can substitute this budget for one that extends
the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, repays the national debt
by the year 2013, provides targeted tax cuts to working families,
invests in domestic priorities such as school modernization and
improved access to health insurance for families.
I would like my colleagues to reflect for a moment. The surpluses on
our horizon offer an extraordinary opportunity to pay down our large
public debt which would be the ultimate tax cut. They allow us to make
Social Security and Medicare sound and solvent for future generations.
They mean that we can close the gaping hole in Medicare coverage and
they make it possible for us to do more for education at all levels.
Unfortunately, this proposed budget resolution squanders this
opportunity and jeopardizes the progress that we have made in
eliminating the annual deficits and paying down the public debt. This
measure also passes up the opportunity to put Social Security,
Medicare, and the Nation as a whole on sound fiscal footing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I would urge
Members to pay very close attention to debate on the five substitutes
we have made in order, four of them being from the other side of the
aisle. Members need to know that under the process of this rule as I
stated, once a substitution passes, we are not going to continue any
others. In the vernacular, that means there are no free votes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee
on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I think it is
important for us to note that this rule in fact puts into place what
has been the case under both Democratic control of this institution and
Republican control. What we have done is we have made four Democratic
substitutes in order, one Republican substitute in order. We have been
able to provide an opportunity for a wide range of proposals, to be
very fairly debated. We listened up in the Committee on Rules to
authors of those substitutes. They have indicated their willingness to
be supportive of what it is we are trying to do here by moving ahead
with a very fair and open debate, and I believe that it is in fact
that.
99.9999 percent of this package was provided by the Committee on the
Budget. We had the package placed in the hands of the minority and
other Members of the Committee on Rules by 8:30 last night, and we did
in fact make a modification. It deals with increasing spending for
science. I happen to think that is a very high priority. For me as a
Californian it is very important for us to do that. So let me just say
that the rule is fair. The rule provides the minority with four
opportunities to offer substitutes; the majority with one opportunity.
So I think it should continue to enjoy very strong bipartisan support.
Let me move beyond the debate that we have going on right here to
talk for just a few moments about the issue of the budget itself. I
have found, maybe this is just my perspective as a Californian, that
the American people very much want to see an end to the extraordinary
partisanship that goes on, the partisan bickering which we have seen
back and forth, just listening to some of the speeches that have been
made and criticism of this very fair rule. They do not like those sorts
of partisan attacks, and I hope very much that we can bring an end to
that kind of harsh partisanship, and I think we have evidence of it
coming to an end by simply looking at this budget.
Frankly, just take the example of education. Republicans and
Democrats alike want to improve our public schools. This budget
actually increases by almost 10 percent over last year the level of
funding for schools. That is a $20 billion increase over 5 years. As we
develop policies to go with those resources, we need to make sure that
every American child has a chance to learn the skills and knowledge to
succeed in our new 21st century economy.
Now, let us take another issue on which we have bipartisan agreement,
national defense. Most Democrats, I am happy to say, now agree with
what we Republicans have been saying for years, that we must bolster
our national security spending so that we can get every soldier,
sailor, and airman and their families and their children off of food
stamps and into quality housing.
Let us look at a third issue, Social Security. This budget shows how
Republicans and Democrats now stand together to ensure that the Social
Security surplus is never again spent on other government programs. I
am very happy to say that it is under this Republican leadership, under
the strong leadership of Speaker Hastert, we have successfully
protected every dollar of the Social Security surplus for the past 2
years, and this plan now does that for an additional 5 years. This is
clearly the basis for long-term bipartisan retirement security reform.
Republicans and Democrats stand together to increase medical
research. This budget dedicates $1 billion more than last year to find
cures that will ease the pain of millions of American families.
Republicans and Democrats stand together on key science initiatives, as
I was saying. When we pass this rule, we will ensure that the science
and space programs funded in this budget are supported at a level
needed to continue the cutting-edge science and space work that go on
in places like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California and
other fine facilities throughout the region that I am privileged to
represent.
Now, Republicans and Democrats do agree on a wide range of very
important priorities. But of course, there is still quite a bit of
politics left. There is a difference between the basic philosophy of
the competing budgets with the five substitutes that we will have
today. Republicans believe that the Government has an important role in
helping to address many problems, but we never lose sight of the
fundamental fact that America is great because of
[[Page
H1294]]
the American people, families, entrepreneurs, neighborhoods, businesses
and farmers, not the Federal Government.
What does this mean in a budget? It means that while we work hard to
address education, medical research, national defense, retirement
security, and health care, we also set something aside for families.
The Republican budget helps families by paying down $1 trillion in
public debt by 2005 and retiring the entire debt by 2013. This will
provide a tremendous boost to ensuring a strong, stable, vibrant
economy for our children and grandchildren.
The Republican budget also provides some tax relief for American
families, senior citizens, small businesses and farmers. Make no
mistake, this budget spends a lot of money. As I said, we increase
spending on education, health care, medical research, defense and
science. But we believe that families should be in that priority list
as well so that they have a little more of their own money to spend on
school clothes for the kids, college tuition, or a new home computer.
With half of American households participating in financial markets
today, our Nation has what we like to call an emerging investor class.
More than ever before, the American people recognize that they have a
direct stake in policies focused on expanding economic prosperity,
including smart tax relief.
Mr. Speaker, the investor class supports pro-growth, pro-investment
tax reductions because they know that America's strength, our
prosperity, is driven more by the emerging Internet economy and the
NASDAQ, the wonder of NASDAQ and the companies involved there, than the
Federal bureaucracy that exists here in Washington, DC.
This is a very, very good budget that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich) is going to be moving forward here. I think that this rule
deserves again strong bipartisan support by providing all these
alternatives to our colleagues, and we can move ahead focusing on the
areas of agreement and we can have what the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) describes as a full, vigorous, tough debate on
these areas of disagreement.
I urge support of the rule and our budget package.
{time} 1115
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, judging from comments by the campaign of
Governor Bush, this Republican budget abandons conservatives. If we
take a close look at the details of this budget, it is clear that this
budget also abandons middle-class families. In their haste to embrace
massive fiscally irresponsible tax cuts, Republicans are abandoning
Social Security, Medicare, and fiscal responsibility.
Despite their talk about how much they care about seniors, the
Republican budget does nothing to strengthen the retirement security
for current and future retirees.
This Republican budget does nothing to extend the life of Social
Security and Medicare. It does not provide one dime to strengthen the
Social Security or Medicare trust funds. They ignore the looming
shortfall that threatens the future retirement security of all
Americans.
The Republican budget fails to propose a Medicare prescription drug
benefit to cover all seniors. The cost of prescription drugs is hurting
all seniors. This is not a problem which is just limited to low-income
retirees.
The Republican budget does not help middle-class seniors. Their
budget says that they need to be spending themselves into poverty with
prescription drug costs before they get Medicare coverage of
prescription drugs.
To make matters worse, I understand at 3:00 a.m. in the morning, the
funding that was in their budget to support a Patients' Bill of Rights
was taken out. So I suppose that priority will also be lost.
The Republican budget abandons the fiscal responsibility that we
worked so hard to achieve and tries to turn back the clock to the early
1990s. They threaten the balanced budget and efforts to pay off the
debt by the year 2013.
The analysis by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on the
Budget found that the Republicans would spend some of the Social
Security surplus by 2004 and as a result we would be revisited by on-
budget deficits if we enact this budget once again.
The Republican budget proposes deep cuts in investments in education,
health, and veterans affairs, putting our children and others even
further behind.
One may ask, why this abandonment? The Republican budget sacrifices
fiscal responsibility on the altar of massive tax cuts. The Republican
budget proposes $150 billion in tax cuts now, $50 billion after the
smoke clears, and then possibly another $50 billion in tax cuts for the
wealthy and special interests if revenues increase.
The American people rejected these massive tax cuts that threaten our
economic progress and retirement security last year, in last year's
budget debate. Clearly, Republicans still have not gotten the message.
The American people want a budget plan that pays off the debt, extends
the life of Social Security and Medicare, provides a prescription drug
plan for all seniors, and addresses our pressing health and educational
priorities.
So this is not the right budget. We need to vote against the rule and
vote against this budget. Let us reject this budget and protect the
surplus for the priorities of working families.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget and for our
alternative that puts families first and keeps our fiscal house in
order.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kasich), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I am frankly kind of astounded by what I
have just heard because I thought that was a speech laying in the
bottom of the desk drawer from 6 years ago. It is so far from
representing reality, I am really stunned.
I want to say what the budget does. I think the people will be very
surprised when they hear about what we have in this budget.
First of all, this will be the second year, I think in my lifetime,
that the politicians in Washington kept their mitts off of Social
Security. That never happened before. In 1995, we were running $175
billion deficits; and they were projected to be as far as the eye could
see, and here we are for the second year in a row, because of the
leadership of people in this House, we are not going to touch the
Social Security surplus. We are locking it up. We are saying to senior
citizens, we are not going to take one dime of it and use it for any
other spending like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did
for all of my lifetime.
We are saying we are not going to touch it. We are going to lock it
up. We are going to put an electric fence around it, and it will only
be used to pay for Social Security benefits or to pay down debt. We are
the first group of leaders in this town to keep our mitts off of Social
Security in decades. It is amazing.
Secondly, in terms of Medicare, not only are we going to have a
reform agenda on Medicare to try to strengthen Medicare, but we have
money set aside so that our poorest senior citizens can have access to
prescription drugs; $40 billion worth of potential resources to both
reform Medicare, strengthen Medicare and to provide a prescription drug
benefit to our poorest seniors who cannot afford to go to the pharmacy
because they do not have any money. That is in this budget.
Thirdly, we are going to pay down a trillion dollars in the publicly
held debt. Did my colleagues hear what I said? We are going to pay down
$1 trillion of the debt that is owed to the public in this country.
Now, if Regis was here and he was flashing this up on the wall about
being a millionaire, everybody in the gallery would be standing up and
cheering; but the fact is I think they will be cheering when they
realize that by paying down a trillion dollars in the publicly held
debt we are lifting a huge burden off the backs of our children.
When we came to this body in 1995 and took our majority, the guiding
star was the future of our children. We are beginning to carry through
with our promises, which is unusual for politicians.
[[Page
H1295]]
Fourthly, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) just said that
we do not have any tax relief for the middle class. I have to send him
our budget because the first thing we passed around this House was to
ease the marriage penalty so that when people get married they do not
get punished for getting married. Now that is not something that does
not apply to the middle class. Most of the people who are going to
benefit are middle-class couples who got married, who are not going to
be punished anymore because they got married. This budget will
accommodate that.
In addition to that, if one is a senior citizen and they have decided
to work, in this town we have a formula: if they work, we punish them.
Well, we just passed a bill through this House that I think received
total support from everybody in this House that said if seniors work we
are not going to take away their Social Security benefits.
Who does that apply most to? People at the lower end of the economic
spectrum.
Now, say someone is a little family farmer. We just had a thousand
farmers show up in this town. We are saying that when they die, they
are not going to have to visit the undertaker and the IRS on the same
day. They can take their family farm, and they can give it to their
kids.
Is that not what we want in America? I think so.
Someone owns this little pharmacy, they are struggling every day to
make it, they make their dollars, they get old, they want to pass it on
to their kids, that is the American dream. To say that that does not
reflect a middle-class value, I mean, come on, shame. We know better
than that.
There are going to be more programs for tax relief for all Americans.
If someone is self-employed and they want to get health insurance, we
are going to make that available to them. If one is a mother and father
that has their kid in a school where their kid is not safe and not
learning, we are going to give them incentives so they will be able to
save so their kid can go to the school of their choice.
It is going to be in this budget. It is all provided for.
We strengthen defense, and we also strengthen education. We also
continue our historic increases in investments at the National
Institutes of Health to help people fight the diseases that afflict
them with heart, with cancer, and with lung.
I am astounded. I believe in a good old-fashioned, fair fight, but
let us just fight on the facts. Let us not make stuff up. Let us not
scare people.
The question today is whether we are going to advance the reform
agenda in Washington or whether we are going to continue to be
obstacles in this town to the need to reform and pare down government
and prioritize government and clean up waste, fraud and abuse and
protect Social Security and provide tax relief.
If one is for the reform agenda, they will support this budget. I
know that for the period of the next, I do not know, 6 or 7 hours, we
are going to hear a lot of code words: risky, dangerous, irresponsible.
Those are code words for more bureaucracy. They are code words for more
standing in line. They are code words for more frustration. They are
code words for higher taxes.
That is fine, but let us not just make stuff up out of the thin air.
Mr. Speaker, I hope some of my colleagues will have the good sense to
fight this fair. If they want more spending, great; say it. If they
want higher taxes, fine; say it. That is what the fight ought to be on.
This is a budget we should all support.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, last week things were looking pretty good around here.
Last week the Republican members of the Committee on the Budget showed
the world their proposed budget. They gave people plenty of time to
read it, and they were not ashamed of it.
Last night, all that changed. Last night, or this morning, at 2:00
a.m. this morning, the real Republican budget came out. But unless one
is a member of the Committee on Rules, they did not see the Republican
budget until 2:00 this morning, just hours before its coming up for a
vote.
Mr. Speaker, these days the only creatures that stir in the middle of
the night, long after the sun goes down, are vampires and members of
the Committee on Rules. Eighty percent of the members' meetings on the
Committee on Rules do not start until the lights have to be turned on,
and from the looks of some of these bills, Mr. Speaker, I could see
why. They read a lot better in the dark.
This budget does nothing to save Social Security or Medicare or help
seniors with the Medicare prescription drug plan. The chairman of the
committee said that 99.9 percent of this was the same budget. Let me
say some of the other parts of that budget.
Some of the changes are pretty big, Mr. Speaker. This was all done
after the hearing concluded. They went back into this room somewhere,
and they changed the public debt limit, which is a violation of the
Budget Act. They promised to cut $5 billion, but they did not say where
they were going to cut it from. They added $3 billion for science,
which still is far less than the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt)
would have added if his amendment was made in order.
They still did not do much more middle-class families.
They added two brand-new points of order. They changed the
reconciliation directives. They changed the provision dealing with
health care and Patients' Bill of Rights. They changed the reserve fund
for thrift savings plans and benefits. These were all done, Mr.
Speaker, after the hearing had been concluded for hours.
This bill that we are voting on today never appeared before the
Committee on the Budget.
So I urge my colleagues to reject this budget and send it back and
let the Committee on the Budget who have expertise in this field really
have a chance to look at it and do something about Social Security and
Medicare, and preferably earlier in the day.
{time} 1130
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time available on both
sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) has 11 minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) has 19 minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the
Budget.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, last year, for the first time in 40 years,
we balanced the budget without including the surplus and Social
Security. We balanced it to the tune of $704 million. Having reached
this milestone, we made a vow on both sides of the aisle when we
brought our budget resolution to the floor last year that we would not
get back into an on-budget deficit again, we would not slip back into
borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. We would use the
surplus, we said, in the Social Security trust fund instead to buy up
existing Treasury bonds and notes, reduce debt rather than create new
Federal debt.
To accomplish that purpose we both trotted out something we called
``lockboxes,'' a portentous name. When you got through all the
boilerplate, both of them came down to this. You have a point of order.
If somebody brought to the House floor a resolution, like this
resolution, a budget resolution, and it dipped into Social Security
again, went into deficit, you could raise a point of order.
Now, to the American people, that suggests summary dismissal. It
disposes of the question. But in truth, the Committee on Rules in the
House is the task master at waiving points of order.
We have before us today a rule that ought to be subject to a point of
order if we take the lockbox seriously, because this rule waives all
points of order. This rule permits a budget resolution to come to the
floor that, in our
[[Page
H1296]]
opinion, would wipe out the surplus in 3 years and, in the 4th and 5th
years, 2004, 2005, and subsequent years, it would put us back into
deficit again, put us back into borrowing from Social Security.
This simple chart, this simple arithmetic on this chart shows you
why. The Republicans claim that they have $110 billion surplus over the
next 5 years. But the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) just showed that
they intend to use $40 billion for a prescription drug benefit, and we
welcome them to the fold on this issue, because we think it needs to be
done. So they have matched us. They have $40 billion for a Medicare
benefit.
In addition, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has said on
repeated occasions in committee markup, yesterday in the Committee on
Rules, last night on the floor, that they will have a tax cut of $150
billion, plus $50 billion more, and if CBO says there are more
revenues, they will go up still more. When you factor in that
additional $50 billion, the $40 billion for Medicare prescription
drugs, guess what? The surplus disappears in 3 years and we are back in
deficit, back into borrowing from Social Security.
So this in simple arithmetic is the argument why this rule should be
voted down. Vote it down. Make the Republicans bring back to the floor
a budget resolution that safely is in surplus, and not this one, which
clearly puts us in danger of backsliding into deficit and borrowing
again from Social Security.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me time to speak in opposition to this rule.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is restrictive. Although there are claims that
it is allowing all debate on all points of view, it, in fact, does not
do that.
I spent a considerable amount of time with my staff putting together
a substitute amendment that certainly would have allowed this debate to
be expanded out to talk about tax fairness and the kind of investments
we need to keep our economic growth and to keep families secure in this
country. I think it was a point of view that deserved to be debated,
deliberated and voted upon.
We ought not to have just a debate about whether we are going to have
incredibly huge tax cuts that favor only a small segment of already
wealthy individuals and corporations, or a situation where people talk
about taxing some more.
We have within this trillions of dollars of budget a huge amount of
unnecessary and unwarranted advantages that are given to special
interests. If we were to recapture those, we can do the two things that
we need to do in this country, invest in our economic growth, in
education and job training, in health care and retirement security, and
research and development, in infrastructure, and, at the same time,
have the kind of fairness we need.
Mr. Speaker, we need to have this process go back to the drawing
board and come out again.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with the rule, but I do have a
problem with the budget resolution offered by the Republican Party
today. Yogi Berra should be with us here today, because it is ``deja vu
all over again.'' Last year it was a $800 billion risky tax cut scheme,
this year it is a $1 trillion 10-year risky tax cut scheme.
You would think that the Republican leadership would get it
eventually and start listening to the American people about where our
priorities should lie. But the problem is not that they do not get it,
the problem is that they cannot sell it. They could not sell it last
year when it was a $800 billion tax cut, they are not going to be able
to sell it this year with a $1 trillion tax cut.
They can't sell it because the American people won't buy it. The
American people understand if these projected budget surpluses do in
fact materialize, although there is no guarantee they will, now is the
time to take care of existing obligations, to shore up Social Security,
Medicare, and pay down the $5.7 trillion national debt. That is the
fiscally responsible and fiscally disciplined approach.
It is sad that when the Republican leadership and members on the
committee had an opportunity to vote for their presidential nominee's
fiscal plan, a $1.5 trillion tax cut scheme, they were all ducking for
cover, hiding under their desks and trying to flee the budget room in
order to avoid having to vote on that issue.
But the saddest commentary of all is that a contemporary American
comic strip is more reflective of the values of the American people
today than the governing majority party in the House of
Representatives. I do not know how many of my colleagues had the
opportunity to see the Doonesbury article that appeared about a week
ago, but I think it tells the story very, very well.
It opens up with a scene of men with one guy saying, ``Heads up, he
is coming this way.''
Another gentleman, ``Try not to make eye contact.''
And an empty hat, which I suppose depicts Governor Bush. Then
Governor Bush saying, ``Hi, fellows, I'm George Bush and I'm asking for
your support. If you vote for me I will give a huge tax cut. How is
that for a straight deal, huh?''
``Well, I'm not sure. I mean, I can see how the wealthy might get
excited. They'd be averaging $50,000. But it wouldn't mean much to a
guy in my bracket.''
Another gentleman says, ``Besides, I care a lot more about shoring up
Social Security and Medicare and paying down the national debt.''
``Yeah, didn't fiscal responsibility used to be a Republican issue?''
Then Governor Bush: ``But, but, you do not understand. I am offering
you something for nothing. Free money. Don't you want free money?''
Then another gentleman: ``Sure, but not until we pay our bills.''
``Right.''
Governor Bush: ``What is the matter with this country?''
The last gentleman: ``I guess we have grown up a lot as a people. I
know I have.''
Now, I am not saying the Doonesbury comic strip should set fiscal
policy in this Nation, but I do believe, sadly, this comic strip better
reflects the values of the American people and why we should support
the Democratic alternative today.
I certainly didn't come to this Congress in order to leave a legacy
of debt for my two little boys or for future generations.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we enjoy the fruits of fiscal
responsibility and an expanding economy. This budget resolution, thrown
together at 3 in the morning in the dark of night in a secret room,
this budget resolution puts all that at risk. Why? To support huge tax
cuts that threaten to bust budget and endanger Social Security and
Medicare.
The only good thing that can be said about this resolution is that it
is slightly less fiscally irresponsible than the plan put forward by
Governor George Bush, to which Senator McCain responded that it
represented fiscal irresponsibility.
What kind of tax cuts are we asked to risk Social Security and
Medicare for? We saw earlier this month, when the Republican tax bill
provided three-quarters of the benefits to 1 percent of the richest
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, in his earlier speech, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Kasich) invoked the sacred name of Regis Philbin. What game are we
playing here?
The Republicans are not playing the game who wants to be a
millionaire or who wants to marry a multimillionaire. They have a new
game, who wants to risk Social Security to give huge tax breaks to
multi-multi-multimillionaires.
Let us not play that game. Let us reject this rule and reject the
Republican budget resolution and return to fiscal responsibility.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough)
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me time.
[[Page
H1297]]
I love listening to these budget debates every year. It is like back
to the future. It is like deja vu all over again. Unfortunately for the
Democrats, they seem to be what Paul Simon called a one trick pony. It
is the same thing over and over and over again.
Except this year they have got three trick ponies. They have
MediScare. They talk about how Republicans are going to destroy
Medicare and Social Security. They have class warfare, talking about
massive tax cuts for the rich, and Americans are not going to buy it.
Well, heck, Democrats are buying it. One hundred Republican and
Democrat Senators last night supported stopping penalizing senior
citizens for earning money. They supported the marriage tax penalty
reduction, bought and sold for by Democrats. God bless America.
Everybody is doing it.
They also spend without care. Every one of their substitutes spends
more and taxes more than the Republican budget.
Now they are reading cartoons. That is how sad it has gotten. I
understand, because you know, in 1995, when we got here, they were
doing the same class warfare argument, saying that we were going to
destroy the economy. You cannot balance the budget in 7 years without
destroying the economy and killing the middle class.
Yet Alan Greenspan came to the Committee on the Budget and testified
if you all would pass this Balanced Budget Act, I predict Americans
will see unprecedented growth over the next 5 to 7 years. Greenspan
said it in 1995. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) had the courage
and vision to follow through with it, as did the Republican Congress.
We did it, and you know what? It was not 7 years later. Five years
later we balanced the budget. We gave the middle class Americans the
strongest economic boom in over a generation. And we did something
else. For the first time in a generation, this Congress did not steal
from Social Security in their budget.
Yet these same Democrats that come to the floor today, that have the
nerve to call themselves protectors of Social Security, were the very
ones while in power for 40 years, stole from Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, I remember when some of us in 1995 said we could balance
the budget and not steal from Social Security's trust fund, we were
called radical extremists. Five years later, the budget is balanced;
and we are keeping Social Security solvent by keeping our hands off of
it.
I will tell you what, this year continues what we have done for the
past 5 years. The gentlewoman from New York defined folly as repeating
what has failed and expecting it to succeed. They have repeated the
same class warfare arguments. They have repeated the same arguments of
fear. They have repeated the same arguments of risky schemes. And their
arguments have failed.
It is time to look at what has happened because of the vision of the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the Committee on the Budget's vision,
and this Congress' vision. We have balanced the budget. We have saved
Social Security. And we have given tax cuts to middle class Americans.
{time} 1145
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca).
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the budget rule. I am
totally against the budget debate and the budget rule. I think it is
wrong for America. We just heard the debate right now, and we talked
about keeping the budget balanced. It is not just about keeping the
budget balanced today. We are talking about a solvent budget, a budget
that will be there for the future as well, protecting our children for
today, investing in our future, protecting Social Security, taking down
the debt, taking care of drug prescriptions, taking care of what we
need to do.
It is easy to get up here and talk about a balanced budget. Yes, we
can talk about it today, but what is the impact it will have on the
future? That is what is so important right now. It is being fiscally
responsible, taking that budget and doing what needs to be done. We are
not doing that.
The Democrats have a budget proposal right now that deals with taking
care of the American people, working families; taking care of investing
in our future, protecting as well what we need to do, and that is to
make sure that we have good education, quality education, scholarships
that will be available. It is investing in the future.
I ask my colleagues to vote against this rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask again where we stand on the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) has 8 minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Again, I did not have time before, but I think I should call to the
attention of the House, in light of what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich) said earlier, that this resolution offered by the Republicans
does not provide for the abolition of the Social Security earnings
test. If it did, on page 33 of the concurrent resolution of the budget
under function 650, Social Security over the next 5 years would have to
be adjusted by $20 billion. They do not adjust it. They do not provide
for this waiver, repeal of the earnings test, despite what the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) just said.
Now, this is an example of doing something hurriedly, doing something
slipshod and not attending to important detail. They are not doing what
they are purporting to say that it does.
We had the same problem last year. We had a military pay raise on the
floor, retiree increases; and the budget resolution did not reflect
those, did not account for those.
Mr. Speaker, I call it to the attention of the House. Function 650 is
unadjusted, does not reflect the cost that over the next 5 years if we
are going to repeal the earnings test, we have to add $20 billion in
outlay expenditures by the Social Security Trust Fund. Everybody should
know that when voting on this rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a distinguished member of the
Committee on the Budget.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The minority leader's speech today was a speech taken out from
something he said 5 or 6 years ago, and the speech I just heard from
the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget reminds
me of straining out gnats and swallowing camels. We set aside $200
billion for tax cuts. Now, we are told it is irresponsible. We are told
it is outrageous. We are told it is something we cannot afford.
The fact is, in the next 5 years we are going to raise $10 trillion
in revenues, and we are going to return to the American people $200
billion. The tax cut ends the marriage penalty. A good number of
Democrats voted for that. The tax cut repeals Social Security earnings
limit. All Democrats voted for that. The next tax cut, which a good
number of Democrats voted for, reduces the death penalty. We are
expanding educational savings accounts. We are increasing health care
deductibility. We are providing tax breaks for poor communities, and we
are strengthening private pension plans. Mr. Speaker, $200 billion out
of $10 trillion, a 2 percent tax cut. But our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle do not even want to return 2 percent.
Mr. Speaker, we protect Social Security. Last year was the first year
since 1960 that a Congress did not spend Social Security reserves. We
protect it in this budget we are in, and we protect it in the budget we
are now voting on. We are strengthening Medicare. We are setting aside
$40 billion for prescription drugs, $40 billion. That is what we are
setting aside, and yet the minority leader said we were cutting
Medicare.
We retire the public debt. Mr. Speaker, $1 trillion of public debt in
the next 5 years, $1 trillion. It never happened under Democrat rule.
We are doing it now, and it is in this bill. We are providing that tax
fairness for families. It is not just returning revenue to the American
people, but dealing with fairness. Couples should not have to pay taxes
when they get married; seniors
[[Page
H1298]]
should not have to lose Social Security when they work. And we are
restoring Americans defense; we are putting more money in education,
science, and health. We are doing exactly what we should do.
Now, we are going to have 5 amendments come up and we are going to
oppose 4 of them. We are going to oppose them because they do not meet
these tests. We are going to protect Social Security; and if it does
not do that, we will oppose that. We want Medicare prescriptions, $40
billion. If it is not there, we are going to oppose it. We want to
retire debt. We have already retired $302 billion of debt. We are going
to promote tax fairness, which on the other side of the aisle they seem
to be opposed to. We are going to restore America's defense, and we are
going to strengthen and support education and science. That is what we
are going to do in our budget, and we are determined to succeed.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was so struck by what the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said just a moment ago, that this
budget fails to take into account the repeal of the earnings test, and
I want to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) the
rest of my time, save 1 minute, to sum up.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I
would inquire of anyone on this side who wants to explain why the $20
billion is not provided in function 650, spending by Social Security,
to effect this policy that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
just claimed that he is accommodating. Where is it?
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is off-budget, is it not?
Mr. SPRATT. It is indeed.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, function 650 is a discretionary account, is
it not?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, function 650 is a discretionary account, but
it also has an off-budget account.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, it does not include mandatories. We passed
that bill unanimously in the House; it passed unanimously in the
Senate. It will be signed by the President into law. It was initiated
by the Speaker of this House, and it does not need to be included in
function 650, because it is a mandatory outlay and not a discretionary
fund.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would advise the
gentleman simply to look at page 33 and the gentleman will see there is
an on-budget provision and an off-budget provision, and the off-budget
provision is the Social Security benefit spending provision. It is $20
billion short. I mean this is government work, but $20 billion is still
real money. It is a big mistake.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
think the point is clear, is eminently clear. All of Social Security
spending is off-budget. Function 650 is a discretionary account. What
we are voting on here today includes the incorporation of the Social
Security earnings test to the extent that it needs to be included in
this budget document. I think it is misleading to suggest that it was
put together in a slipshod way when the gentleman knows that the
legislation has already passed the House and the Senate and will be
signed into law and that it will not have a material impact on
discretionary outlays.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his explanation, although I think it falls short.
The fact of the matter is there is provision for off-budget spending.
It is on page 33, function 654 and your report; and that function
understates spending over the next 5 years by Social Security to the
tune of $20 billion. Because my colleagues understate spending here in
calculating how much debt reduction they will achieve in the purchase
of our debt held by the public, they owe the State the accomplishment
of debt reduction. That is a significant mistake, unless they want to
say this is a waivable mistake; it is not. It is bad work. It is a good
reason to vote against the rule and to take this thing back and clean
up.
Let me go back to my chart. I did not have enough time to talk about
it. This chart is simple arithmetic. In simple arithmetic, it shows my
good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), whom I have
enormous respect for and who was just on the floor saying they are
going to have a $200 billion tax cut. That is what the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said in the Committee on Rules yesterday, and that is
what he said repeatedly in our markup.
If they have a $200 billion tax cut, then they have to add $50
billion to the amount of tax reduction over the next 5 years. In
addition, if they have a pharmaceutical benefit, a drug benefit in
Medicare, they have to add $40 billion. And when they add those two
things that they both claim are included, $50 billion and $40 billion,
guess what? The surplus disappears.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This bill
does not, in fact, reflect what the Committee on Budget did. Until the
Committee on Rules stops rewriting budgets, we are going to be in a
situation where neither the Committee on the Budget on the Democratic
or Republican side or any House Members have had any real role in its
construction. That is just plain wrong. This is the most important
document which we produce.
Moreover, let me tell my colleagues that in the Committee on Budget
they blocked our ability to put the Bush tax cut up as an amendment.
They do not want to vote on it. It was not a pretty sight in the
Committee on Budget; it was not a pretty sight in the Committee on
Rules. Neither one of them put the Bush tax cut in order for us to be
able to take a vote upon it. And there is a good reason why, because
two-thirds of the Bush tax cut goes to the richest 10 percent of
taxpayers. The richest 1 percent of taxpayers get an average of $50,000
tax cut. It does not leave enough money to shore up Social Security,
Medicare, education, all the way down the line.
So I urge a vote against the rule so that we can debate this issue
fairly, openly and freely; let us have an open vote on the Bush tax
cut. It is the centerpiece of the economic claim which is being
proposed by the other party. All of us should be allowed to vote upon
it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Let me go back just in conclusion to this chart so that everybody
understands it. This is simple arithmetic. This is not smoke and
mirrors. This takes their numbers, their assumption, their claims about
what their budget resolution does and adds them up correctly. They
claim that they are providing for a tax cut over 5 years of $200
billion, so we adjust their tax cut of $150 billion by $50 billion to
show and allow for a tax cut of $200 billion, which is what they claim
on the floor and in committee.
In addition, they claim on the chart that they just showed and
through comments that they have just made that they too will have a
pharmaceutical drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. They assume
costs of that, they have it in a reserve fund, it is $40 billion. If
they are going to claim it, they have to count it. They claim it, but
do not count it. We count it. Add the $50 billion, add the $40 billion,
adjust for debt service, and in 2003, the surplus of which we are all
so proud which we want to protect, we do not want to backslide into
Social Security, the surplus virtually vanishes. In 2004, there is a $6
billion deficit. We are $6 billion into Social Security again if this
resolution is adopted. In 2005, it is down to $2 billion, and the
subsequent years are just as bad. That is the consequence.
Now, we have tax cuts in our budget resolution, the Spratt
substitute, the Democratic budget resolution. We provide for $50
billion net tax cuts over 5 years and $201 billion net tax cuts over 10
years. We think those are reasonable; and we believe that if our
colleagues do the tax cuts that they are talking about that they are
claiming, they are back in deficit, and that is why this rule should be
voted down. Because it waives what we tried to establish as a major
point of order last year in the lockbox when we said, we cannot bring a
resolution, we cannot bring an appropriations bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, just to be sure both sides understand, could
we
[[Page
H1299]]
have a statement of the times again, please?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 5
minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2001
(House of Representatives - March 23, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H1291-H1326]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 446 ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 446
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the concurrent resolution (
H. Con. Res. 290) establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2001, revising the congressional budget for the
United States Government for fiscal year 2000, and setting
forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years
2002 through 2005. The first reading of the concurrent
resolution shall be dispensed with. Points of order against
consideration of the concurrent resolution for failure to
comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII are waived. General
debate shall not exceed three hours, with two hours of
general debate confined to the congressional budget equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget, and one hour of
general debate on the subject of economic goals and policies
equally divided and controlled by Representative Saxton of
New Jersey and Representative Stark of California or their
designees. After general debate the concurrent resolution
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original concurrent
resolution for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute
rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in
part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All
points of order against the amendment printed in part B of
the report are waived except that the adoption of an
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the
conclusion of consideration of amendments to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent
resolution for amendment and a final period of general
debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall rise and report
the concurrent resolution to the House with such amendment as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the concurrent resolution or to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final
adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered
by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to
section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question
of its adoption.
[[Page
H1292]]
Sec. 2. Rule XXIII shall not apply with respect to the
adoption by the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2001.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate on this issue only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 446 is a structured rule, which is
fairly typical for bringing forward the annual congressional budget
resolution. For a number of years, we have gotten into the very good
habit of managing debate on the budget by asking that all amendments be
drafted in the form of substitutes so that Members could consider the
whole picture as we debate and weigh our spending priorities. This rule
continues that tradition and wisely so.
We have gone to great lengths with this rule to juggle the competing
needs of having a full debate on a range of issues and perspectives
without allowing the process to become so unwieldy that it breaks down
of its own weight.
In that regard, I think the rule is fair in making in order five
substitute amendments reflecting an array of points of view.
Specifically, the rule provides for 3 hours of general debate, with 1
hour specifically designated for discussion of economic goals and
policies as described by the Humphrey-Hawkins provisions of the current
law.
Two hours of the debate time shall be equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Budget, and 1 hour shall be equally divided and controlled by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark).
The rule waives clause 4(a) of rule XIII, requiring a 3-day layover
of the Committee report, against consideration of the resolution. The
rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed
in Part A of the Committee on Rules report as an original concurrent
resolution for the purpose of amendment.
This new base text makes a number of technical and substantive
changes to the underlying resolution, changes that were discussed and
negotiated throughout the day yesterday. This text is available to
Members in the Committee on Rules report, which was filed last night.
The rule waives all points of order against this amendment. The rule
further makes in order only those amendments printed in Part B of the
Committee on Rules report. I would note that, of those five substitutes
I mentioned, four are sponsored by Members of the minority.
Those amendments may be offered only in the order specified in the
report, only by a Member designated in the report, and they shall be
considered as read, they shall be debatable for the time specified in
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and they shall not be subject to amendment.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendments except
that, if an amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted, it is
not in order to consider further substitutes.
The rule provides for a final period of general debate not to exceed
10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on the Budget to occur upon conclusion of
consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment.
The rule permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to offer
amendments in the House necessary to achieve mathematical consistency.
Finally, the rule suspends the application of House Rule XXIII
relating to the establishment of the statutory limit on the public debt
with respect to the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
2001.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the effort of our congressional majority, we
have emerged from decades of deficits; and we are now operating in a
brave new world of surplus. But that does not mean we can or should now
abandon our commitment to fiscal discipline. In fact, it is when the
sky looks most blue that we should be thinking about how best to shovel
out from the mountain of debt we have incurred and prepare for the next
rainy day, which inevitably we know will come.
So I am delighted to be bringing forward to the House, House
Concurrent Resolution 290, the fiscal year 2001 fiscal budget
blueprint. This document, although not binding as a law, sets forth the
guideposts that will dictate the path we take for the rest of this
session of Congress as we complete our budgeting work.
The budget reflects conservative principles and lays the groundwork
for continued success in our mission of paying down the debt,
protecting Social Security, shoring up Medicare, strengthening the
national defense and education, and offering meaningful tax relief to
our seniors, our families, and our small businesses.
{time} 1100
This budget outlines $1 trillion in deficit reduction while taking
the Social Security trust fund completely off the table and while
opening the door for Congress to provide realistic prescription drug
coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. At the same time, we have gone
further than the President in the area of defense, something that is so
critical in this changing world and at a time when we are asking so
much of our men and women in uniform and those in our intelligence
activities.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and his
committee for the work they have done. I particularly share their
interest from a process standpoint in seeking ways to enforce the
fiscal discipline this budget document outlines. I am delighted that we
have been able to work out an arrangement that meets the concerns of
some Members about setting aside surplus moneys up front for further
debt reduction even while we make sure that we have provided the
resources necessary so the appropriators can bring forward legislation
that brings to life our commitments in key areas.
This rule brings that negotiation to fruition, and we have now put in
place a process so that the issue of debt reduction will continue to be
addressed as we move through this year's spending process. That is good
news all around for all Americans. This is a fair rule. I urge Members
to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
This resolution has never seen the light of day. This is not the
resolution that the Committee on the Budget worked over for a few
months. It is certainly not the resolution that the Committee on Rules
held hearings on for several hours yesterday. In fact, I have talked to
Members who have been here much longer than I, and they can recall no
time in which a bill has come to the floor under those circumstances.
It arrived at 2 in the morning, hours after the final vote when the
majority of the Members of this House had left the Hill. The ink will
barely be dry when the leadership makes Members vote on this document.
How many Members will see this new substitute before they have to vote?
I would note that these are not technical changes. The majority has
added $3 billion for science, still below what the President requested.
The new resolution calls for $5 billion in unspecified cuts all to be
announced later, and this is a travesty. The measure changes
reconciliation numbers and includes two new points of order. It even
changes the public debt limit though the rules of the House prohibit
changing that number from what is reported by the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road with this budget process
time and time again. The leadership in this body reminds me of the
bridal contestants in the television show ``Who wants to marry a
millionaire.'' They know it is a charade, but they are going through
the motions anyway. This budget is as unrealistic as the failed budgets
from
[[Page
H1293]]
1998 and 1999. This proposed budget by the majority maintains a single-
minded obsession with large tax cuts. It does nothing to extend the
solvency of Social Security and Medicare for a single day and cuts
funding for critical education, housing, and environmental protection
programs.
In 1998, the majority party in the House and Senate failed to pass a
budget resolution for the first time since the creation of the
congressional budget process. In 1999, the budget adopted by the
majority called for draconian cuts in appropriations to finance a huge
$792 billion tax cut for the wealthy. This budget was disregarded by
the majority almost as soon as they began the appropriations process.
When the final appropriations bill passed Congress in November, 2
months into the fiscal year, appropriated spending overran the budget
resolution by $43.8 billion. In both 1998 and 1999, the American people
rejected these same unrealistic cuts in essential Federal spending and
excessive tax cuts for the very rich. Why on earth does the majority
party believe the American people will suddenly change their minds and
reject essential government services like Social Security and Medicare
in favor of benefits for the wealthiest among us?
The definition of folly is to repeat what has failed and expect it to
succeed, and that is just what this resolution does. It assumes that
Congress will cut nondefense spending by $7 billion below this year's
level and by $20 billion below the level needed to make up for
inflation. Congress must then keep its foot on the brake for 4 more
years, eventually taking nondefense spending $114 billion below the
level of current purchasing power.
Compounding the problem of calling for implausible program cuts is
the fact that the resolution already spends some of the Social Security
surplus. The resolution's $200 billion tax cuts overwhelm the $114
billion reduction in the purchasing power of domestic appropriations.
As a result under the resolution, the non-Social Security surplus is
virtually gone by the year 2003. By 2004, the Government begins
spending the Social Security surplus. And by 2010, the measure spends
$68 billion of the Social Security money.
We have a choice. We can substitute this budget for one that extends
the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, repays the national debt
by the year 2013, provides targeted tax cuts to working families,
invests in domestic priorities such as school modernization and
improved access to health insurance for families.
I would like my colleagues to reflect for a moment. The surpluses on
our horizon offer an extraordinary opportunity to pay down our large
public debt which would be the ultimate tax cut. They allow us to make
Social Security and Medicare sound and solvent for future generations.
They mean that we can close the gaping hole in Medicare coverage and
they make it possible for us to do more for education at all levels.
Unfortunately, this proposed budget resolution squanders this
opportunity and jeopardizes the progress that we have made in
eliminating the annual deficits and paying down the public debt. This
measure also passes up the opportunity to put Social Security,
Medicare, and the Nation as a whole on sound fiscal footing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I would urge
Members to pay very close attention to debate on the five substitutes
we have made in order, four of them being from the other side of the
aisle. Members need to know that under the process of this rule as I
stated, once a substitution passes, we are not going to continue any
others. In the vernacular, that means there are no free votes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee
on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I think it is
important for us to note that this rule in fact puts into place what
has been the case under both Democratic control of this institution and
Republican control. What we have done is we have made four Democratic
substitutes in order, one Republican substitute in order. We have been
able to provide an opportunity for a wide range of proposals, to be
very fairly debated. We listened up in the Committee on Rules to
authors of those substitutes. They have indicated their willingness to
be supportive of what it is we are trying to do here by moving ahead
with a very fair and open debate, and I believe that it is in fact
that.
99.9999 percent of this package was provided by the Committee on the
Budget. We had the package placed in the hands of the minority and
other Members of the Committee on Rules by 8:30 last night, and we did
in fact make a modification. It deals with increasing spending for
science. I happen to think that is a very high priority. For me as a
Californian it is very important for us to do that. So let me just say
that the rule is fair. The rule provides the minority with four
opportunities to offer substitutes; the majority with one opportunity.
So I think it should continue to enjoy very strong bipartisan support.
Let me move beyond the debate that we have going on right here to
talk for just a few moments about the issue of the budget itself. I
have found, maybe this is just my perspective as a Californian, that
the American people very much want to see an end to the extraordinary
partisanship that goes on, the partisan bickering which we have seen
back and forth, just listening to some of the speeches that have been
made and criticism of this very fair rule. They do not like those sorts
of partisan attacks, and I hope very much that we can bring an end to
that kind of harsh partisanship, and I think we have evidence of it
coming to an end by simply looking at this budget.
Frankly, just take the example of education. Republicans and
Democrats alike want to improve our public schools. This budget
actually increases by almost 10 percent over last year the level of
funding for schools. That is a $20 billion increase over 5 years. As we
develop policies to go with those resources, we need to make sure that
every American child has a chance to learn the skills and knowledge to
succeed in our new 21st century economy.
Now, let us take another issue on which we have bipartisan agreement,
national defense. Most Democrats, I am happy to say, now agree with
what we Republicans have been saying for years, that we must bolster
our national security spending so that we can get every soldier,
sailor, and airman and their families and their children off of food
stamps and into quality housing.
Let us look at a third issue, Social Security. This budget shows how
Republicans and Democrats now stand together to ensure that the Social
Security surplus is never again spent on other government programs. I
am very happy to say that it is under this Republican leadership, under
the strong leadership of Speaker Hastert, we have successfully
protected every dollar of the Social Security surplus for the past 2
years, and this plan now does that for an additional 5 years. This is
clearly the basis for long-term bipartisan retirement security reform.
Republicans and Democrats stand together to increase medical
research. This budget dedicates $1 billion more than last year to find
cures that will ease the pain of millions of American families.
Republicans and Democrats stand together on key science initiatives, as
I was saying. When we pass this rule, we will ensure that the science
and space programs funded in this budget are supported at a level
needed to continue the cutting-edge science and space work that go on
in places like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California and
other fine facilities throughout the region that I am privileged to
represent.
Now, Republicans and Democrats do agree on a wide range of very
important priorities. But of course, there is still quite a bit of
politics left. There is a difference between the basic philosophy of
the competing budgets with the five substitutes that we will have
today. Republicans believe that the Government has an important role in
helping to address many problems, but we never lose sight of the
fundamental fact that America is great because of
[[Page
H1294]]
the American people, families, entrepreneurs, neighborhoods, businesses
and farmers, not the Federal Government.
What does this mean in a budget? It means that while we work hard to
address education, medical research, national defense, retirement
security, and health care, we also set something aside for families.
The Republican budget helps families by paying down $1 trillion in
public debt by 2005 and retiring the entire debt by 2013. This will
provide a tremendous boost to ensuring a strong, stable, vibrant
economy for our children and grandchildren.
The Republican budget also provides some tax relief for American
families, senior citizens, small businesses and farmers. Make no
mistake, this budget spends a lot of money. As I said, we increase
spending on education, health care, medical research, defense and
science. But we believe that families should be in that priority list
as well so that they have a little more of their own money to spend on
school clothes for the kids, college tuition, or a new home computer.
With half of American households participating in financial markets
today, our Nation has what we like to call an emerging investor class.
More than ever before, the American people recognize that they have a
direct stake in policies focused on expanding economic prosperity,
including smart tax relief.
Mr. Speaker, the investor class supports pro-growth, pro-investment
tax reductions because they know that America's strength, our
prosperity, is driven more by the emerging Internet economy and the
NASDAQ, the wonder of NASDAQ and the companies involved there, than the
Federal bureaucracy that exists here in Washington, DC.
This is a very, very good budget that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich) is going to be moving forward here. I think that this rule
deserves again strong bipartisan support by providing all these
alternatives to our colleagues, and we can move ahead focusing on the
areas of agreement and we can have what the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) describes as a full, vigorous, tough debate on
these areas of disagreement.
I urge support of the rule and our budget package.
{time} 1115
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, judging from comments by the campaign of
Governor Bush, this Republican budget abandons conservatives. If we
take a close look at the details of this budget, it is clear that this
budget also abandons middle-class families. In their haste to embrace
massive fiscally irresponsible tax cuts, Republicans are abandoning
Social Security, Medicare, and fiscal responsibility.
Despite their talk about how much they care about seniors, the
Republican budget does nothing to strengthen the retirement security
for current and future retirees.
This Republican budget does nothing to extend the life of Social
Security and Medicare. It does not provide one dime to strengthen the
Social Security or Medicare trust funds. They ignore the looming
shortfall that threatens the future retirement security of all
Americans.
The Republican budget fails to propose a Medicare prescription drug
benefit to cover all seniors. The cost of prescription drugs is hurting
all seniors. This is not a problem which is just limited to low-income
retirees.
The Republican budget does not help middle-class seniors. Their
budget says that they need to be spending themselves into poverty with
prescription drug costs before they get Medicare coverage of
prescription drugs.
To make matters worse, I understand at 3:00 a.m. in the morning, the
funding that was in their budget to support a Patients' Bill of Rights
was taken out. So I suppose that priority will also be lost.
The Republican budget abandons the fiscal responsibility that we
worked so hard to achieve and tries to turn back the clock to the early
1990s. They threaten the balanced budget and efforts to pay off the
debt by the year 2013.
The analysis by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on the
Budget found that the Republicans would spend some of the Social
Security surplus by 2004 and as a result we would be revisited by on-
budget deficits if we enact this budget once again.
The Republican budget proposes deep cuts in investments in education,
health, and veterans affairs, putting our children and others even
further behind.
One may ask, why this abandonment? The Republican budget sacrifices
fiscal responsibility on the altar of massive tax cuts. The Republican
budget proposes $150 billion in tax cuts now, $50 billion after the
smoke clears, and then possibly another $50 billion in tax cuts for the
wealthy and special interests if revenues increase.
The American people rejected these massive tax cuts that threaten our
economic progress and retirement security last year, in last year's
budget debate. Clearly, Republicans still have not gotten the message.
The American people want a budget plan that pays off the debt, extends
the life of Social Security and Medicare, provides a prescription drug
plan for all seniors, and addresses our pressing health and educational
priorities.
So this is not the right budget. We need to vote against the rule and
vote against this budget. Let us reject this budget and protect the
surplus for the priorities of working families.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget and for our
alternative that puts families first and keeps our fiscal house in
order.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kasich), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I am frankly kind of astounded by what I
have just heard because I thought that was a speech laying in the
bottom of the desk drawer from 6 years ago. It is so far from
representing reality, I am really stunned.
I want to say what the budget does. I think the people will be very
surprised when they hear about what we have in this budget.
First of all, this will be the second year, I think in my lifetime,
that the politicians in Washington kept their mitts off of Social
Security. That never happened before. In 1995, we were running $175
billion deficits; and they were projected to be as far as the eye could
see, and here we are for the second year in a row, because of the
leadership of people in this House, we are not going to touch the
Social Security surplus. We are locking it up. We are saying to senior
citizens, we are not going to take one dime of it and use it for any
other spending like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did
for all of my lifetime.
We are saying we are not going to touch it. We are going to lock it
up. We are going to put an electric fence around it, and it will only
be used to pay for Social Security benefits or to pay down debt. We are
the first group of leaders in this town to keep our mitts off of Social
Security in decades. It is amazing.
Secondly, in terms of Medicare, not only are we going to have a
reform agenda on Medicare to try to strengthen Medicare, but we have
money set aside so that our poorest senior citizens can have access to
prescription drugs; $40 billion worth of potential resources to both
reform Medicare, strengthen Medicare and to provide a prescription drug
benefit to our poorest seniors who cannot afford to go to the pharmacy
because they do not have any money. That is in this budget.
Thirdly, we are going to pay down a trillion dollars in the publicly
held debt. Did my colleagues hear what I said? We are going to pay down
$1 trillion of the debt that is owed to the public in this country.
Now, if Regis was here and he was flashing this up on the wall about
being a millionaire, everybody in the gallery would be standing up and
cheering; but the fact is I think they will be cheering when they
realize that by paying down a trillion dollars in the publicly held
debt we are lifting a huge burden off the backs of our children.
When we came to this body in 1995 and took our majority, the guiding
star was the future of our children. We are beginning to carry through
with our promises, which is unusual for politicians.
[[Page
H1295]]
Fourthly, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) just said that
we do not have any tax relief for the middle class. I have to send him
our budget because the first thing we passed around this House was to
ease the marriage penalty so that when people get married they do not
get punished for getting married. Now that is not something that does
not apply to the middle class. Most of the people who are going to
benefit are middle-class couples who got married, who are not going to
be punished anymore because they got married. This budget will
accommodate that.
In addition to that, if one is a senior citizen and they have decided
to work, in this town we have a formula: if they work, we punish them.
Well, we just passed a bill through this House that I think received
total support from everybody in this House that said if seniors work we
are not going to take away their Social Security benefits.
Who does that apply most to? People at the lower end of the economic
spectrum.
Now, say someone is a little family farmer. We just had a thousand
farmers show up in this town. We are saying that when they die, they
are not going to have to visit the undertaker and the IRS on the same
day. They can take their family farm, and they can give it to their
kids.
Is that not what we want in America? I think so.
Someone owns this little pharmacy, they are struggling every day to
make it, they make their dollars, they get old, they want to pass it on
to their kids, that is the American dream. To say that that does not
reflect a middle-class value, I mean, come on, shame. We know better
than that.
There are going to be more programs for tax relief for all Americans.
If someone is self-employed and they want to get health insurance, we
are going to make that available to them. If one is a mother and father
that has their kid in a school where their kid is not safe and not
learning, we are going to give them incentives so they will be able to
save so their kid can go to the school of their choice.
It is going to be in this budget. It is all provided for.
We strengthen defense, and we also strengthen education. We also
continue our historic increases in investments at the National
Institutes of Health to help people fight the diseases that afflict
them with heart, with cancer, and with lung.
I am astounded. I believe in a good old-fashioned, fair fight, but
let us just fight on the facts. Let us not make stuff up. Let us not
scare people.
The question today is whether we are going to advance the reform
agenda in Washington or whether we are going to continue to be
obstacles in this town to the need to reform and pare down government
and prioritize government and clean up waste, fraud and abuse and
protect Social Security and provide tax relief.
If one is for the reform agenda, they will support this budget. I
know that for the period of the next, I do not know, 6 or 7 hours, we
are going to hear a lot of code words: risky, dangerous, irresponsible.
Those are code words for more bureaucracy. They are code words for more
standing in line. They are code words for more frustration. They are
code words for higher taxes.
That is fine, but let us not just make stuff up out of the thin air.
Mr. Speaker, I hope some of my colleagues will have the good sense to
fight this fair. If they want more spending, great; say it. If they
want higher taxes, fine; say it. That is what the fight ought to be on.
This is a budget we should all support.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, last week things were looking pretty good around here.
Last week the Republican members of the Committee on the Budget showed
the world their proposed budget. They gave people plenty of time to
read it, and they were not ashamed of it.
Last night, all that changed. Last night, or this morning, at 2:00
a.m. this morning, the real Republican budget came out. But unless one
is a member of the Committee on Rules, they did not see the Republican
budget until 2:00 this morning, just hours before its coming up for a
vote.
Mr. Speaker, these days the only creatures that stir in the middle of
the night, long after the sun goes down, are vampires and members of
the Committee on Rules. Eighty percent of the members' meetings on the
Committee on Rules do not start until the lights have to be turned on,
and from the looks of some of these bills, Mr. Speaker, I could see
why. They read a lot better in the dark.
This budget does nothing to save Social Security or Medicare or help
seniors with the Medicare prescription drug plan. The chairman of the
committee said that 99.9 percent of this was the same budget. Let me
say some of the other parts of that budget.
Some of the changes are pretty big, Mr. Speaker. This was all done
after the hearing concluded. They went back into this room somewhere,
and they changed the public debt limit, which is a violation of the
Budget Act. They promised to cut $5 billion, but they did not say where
they were going to cut it from. They added $3 billion for science,
which still is far less than the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt)
would have added if his amendment was made in order.
They still did not do much more middle-class families.
They added two brand-new points of order. They changed the
reconciliation directives. They changed the provision dealing with
health care and Patients' Bill of Rights. They changed the reserve fund
for thrift savings plans and benefits. These were all done, Mr.
Speaker, after the hearing had been concluded for hours.
This bill that we are voting on today never appeared before the
Committee on the Budget.
So I urge my colleagues to reject this budget and send it back and
let the Committee on the Budget who have expertise in this field really
have a chance to look at it and do something about Social Security and
Medicare, and preferably earlier in the day.
{time} 1130
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time available on both
sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) has 11 minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) has 19 minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the
Budget.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, last year, for the first time in 40 years,
we balanced the budget without including the surplus and Social
Security. We balanced it to the tune of $704 million. Having reached
this milestone, we made a vow on both sides of the aisle when we
brought our budget resolution to the floor last year that we would not
get back into an on-budget deficit again, we would not slip back into
borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. We would use the
surplus, we said, in the Social Security trust fund instead to buy up
existing Treasury bonds and notes, reduce debt rather than create new
Federal debt.
To accomplish that purpose we both trotted out something we called
``lockboxes,'' a portentous name. When you got through all the
boilerplate, both of them came down to this. You have a point of order.
If somebody brought to the House floor a resolution, like this
resolution, a budget resolution, and it dipped into Social Security
again, went into deficit, you could raise a point of order.
Now, to the American people, that suggests summary dismissal. It
disposes of the question. But in truth, the Committee on Rules in the
House is the task master at waiving points of order.
We have before us today a rule that ought to be subject to a point of
order if we take the lockbox seriously, because this rule waives all
points of order. This rule permits a budget resolution to come to the
floor that, in our
[[Page
H1296]]
opinion, would wipe out the surplus in 3 years and, in the 4th and 5th
years, 2004, 2005, and subsequent years, it would put us back into
deficit again, put us back into borrowing from Social Security.
This simple chart, this simple arithmetic on this chart shows you
why. The Republicans claim that they have $110 billion surplus over the
next 5 years. But the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) just showed that
they intend to use $40 billion for a prescription drug benefit, and we
welcome them to the fold on this issue, because we think it needs to be
done. So they have matched us. They have $40 billion for a Medicare
benefit.
In addition, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has said on
repeated occasions in committee markup, yesterday in the Committee on
Rules, last night on the floor, that they will have a tax cut of $150
billion, plus $50 billion more, and if CBO says there are more
revenues, they will go up still more. When you factor in that
additional $50 billion, the $40 billion for Medicare prescription
drugs, guess what? The surplus disappears in 3 years and we are back in
deficit, back into borrowing from Social Security.
So this in simple arithmetic is the argument why this rule should be
voted down. Vote it down. Make the Republicans bring back to the floor
a budget resolution that safely is in surplus, and not this one, which
clearly puts us in danger of backsliding into deficit and borrowing
again from Social Security.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me time to speak in opposition to this rule.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is restrictive. Although there are claims that
it is allowing all debate on all points of view, it, in fact, does not
do that.
I spent a considerable amount of time with my staff putting together
a substitute amendment that certainly would have allowed this debate to
be expanded out to talk about tax fairness and the kind of investments
we need to keep our economic growth and to keep families secure in this
country. I think it was a point of view that deserved to be debated,
deliberated and voted upon.
We ought not to have just a debate about whether we are going to have
incredibly huge tax cuts that favor only a small segment of already
wealthy individuals and corporations, or a situation where people talk
about taxing some more.
We have within this trillions of dollars of budget a huge amount of
unnecessary and unwarranted advantages that are given to special
interests. If we were to recapture those, we can do the two things that
we need to do in this country, invest in our economic growth, in
education and job training, in health care and retirement security, and
research and development, in infrastructure, and, at the same time,
have the kind of fairness we need.
Mr. Speaker, we need to have this process go back to the drawing
board and come out again.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with the rule, but I do have a
problem with the budget resolution offered by the Republican Party
today. Yogi Berra should be with us here today, because it is ``deja vu
all over again.'' Last year it was a $800 billion risky tax cut scheme,
this year it is a $1 trillion 10-year risky tax cut scheme.
You would think that the Republican leadership would get it
eventually and start listening to the American people about where our
priorities should lie. But the problem is not that they do not get it,
the problem is that they cannot sell it. They could not sell it last
year when it was a $800 billion tax cut, they are not going to be able
to sell it this year with a $1 trillion tax cut.
They can't sell it because the American people won't buy it. The
American people understand if these projected budget surpluses do in
fact materialize, although there is no guarantee they will, now is the
time to take care of existing obligations, to shore up Social Security,
Medicare, and pay down the $5.7 trillion national debt. That is the
fiscally responsible and fiscally disciplined approach.
It is sad that when the Republican leadership and members on the
committee had an opportunity to vote for their presidential nominee's
fiscal plan, a $1.5 trillion tax cut scheme, they were all ducking for
cover, hiding under their desks and trying to flee the budget room in
order to avoid having to vote on that issue.
But the saddest commentary of all is that a contemporary American
comic strip is more reflective of the values of the American people
today than the governing majority party in the House of
Representatives. I do not know how many of my colleagues had the
opportunity to see the Doonesbury article that appeared about a week
ago, but I think it tells the story very, very well.
It opens up with a scene of men with one guy saying, ``Heads up, he
is coming this way.''
Another gentleman, ``Try not to make eye contact.''
And an empty hat, which I suppose depicts Governor Bush. Then
Governor Bush saying, ``Hi, fellows, I'm George Bush and I'm asking for
your support. If you vote for me I will give a huge tax cut. How is
that for a straight deal, huh?''
``Well, I'm not sure. I mean, I can see how the wealthy might get
excited. They'd be averaging $50,000. But it wouldn't mean much to a
guy in my bracket.''
Another gentleman says, ``Besides, I care a lot more about shoring up
Social Security and Medicare and paying down the national debt.''
``Yeah, didn't fiscal responsibility used to be a Republican issue?''
Then Governor Bush: ``But, but, you do not understand. I am offering
you something for nothing. Free money. Don't you want free money?''
Then another gentleman: ``Sure, but not until we pay our bills.''
``Right.''
Governor Bush: ``What is the matter with this country?''
The last gentleman: ``I guess we have grown up a lot as a people. I
know I have.''
Now, I am not saying the Doonesbury comic strip should set fiscal
policy in this Nation, but I do believe, sadly, this comic strip better
reflects the values of the American people and why we should support
the Democratic alternative today.
I certainly didn't come to this Congress in order to leave a legacy
of debt for my two little boys or for future generations.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we enjoy the fruits of fiscal
responsibility and an expanding economy. This budget resolution, thrown
together at 3 in the morning in the dark of night in a secret room,
this budget resolution puts all that at risk. Why? To support huge tax
cuts that threaten to bust budget and endanger Social Security and
Medicare.
The only good thing that can be said about this resolution is that it
is slightly less fiscally irresponsible than the plan put forward by
Governor George Bush, to which Senator McCain responded that it
represented fiscal irresponsibility.
What kind of tax cuts are we asked to risk Social Security and
Medicare for? We saw earlier this month, when the Republican tax bill
provided three-quarters of the benefits to 1 percent of the richest
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, in his earlier speech, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Kasich) invoked the sacred name of Regis Philbin. What game are we
playing here?
The Republicans are not playing the game who wants to be a
millionaire or who wants to marry a multimillionaire. They have a new
game, who wants to risk Social Security to give huge tax breaks to
multi-multi-multimillionaires.
Let us not play that game. Let us reject this rule and reject the
Republican budget resolution and return to fiscal responsibility.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough)
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me time.
[[Page
H1297]]
I love listening to these budget debates every year. It is like back
to the future. It is like deja vu all over again. Unfortunately for the
Democrats, they seem to be what Paul Simon called a one trick pony. It
is the same thing over and over and over again.
Except this year they have got three trick ponies. They have
MediScare. They talk about how Republicans are going to destroy
Medicare and Social Security. They have class warfare, talking about
massive tax cuts for the rich, and Americans are not going to buy it.
Well, heck, Democrats are buying it. One hundred Republican and
Democrat Senators last night supported stopping penalizing senior
citizens for earning money. They supported the marriage tax penalty
reduction, bought and sold for by Democrats. God bless America.
Everybody is doing it.
They also spend without care. Every one of their substitutes spends
more and taxes more than the Republican budget.
Now they are reading cartoons. That is how sad it has gotten. I
understand, because you know, in 1995, when we got here, they were
doing the same class warfare argument, saying that we were going to
destroy the economy. You cannot balance the budget in 7 years without
destroying the economy and killing the middle class.
Yet Alan Greenspan came to the Committee on the Budget and testified
if you all would pass this Balanced Budget Act, I predict Americans
will see unprecedented growth over the next 5 to 7 years. Greenspan
said it in 1995. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) had the courage
and vision to follow through with it, as did the Republican Congress.
We did it, and you know what? It was not 7 years later. Five years
later we balanced the budget. We gave the middle class Americans the
strongest economic boom in over a generation. And we did something
else. For the first time in a generation, this Congress did not steal
from Social Security in their budget.
Yet these same Democrats that come to the floor today, that have the
nerve to call themselves protectors of Social Security, were the very
ones while in power for 40 years, stole from Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, I remember when some of us in 1995 said we could balance
the budget and not steal from Social Security's trust fund, we were
called radical extremists. Five years later, the budget is balanced;
and we are keeping Social Security solvent by keeping our hands off of
it.
I will tell you what, this year continues what we have done for the
past 5 years. The gentlewoman from New York defined folly as repeating
what has failed and expecting it to succeed. They have repeated the
same class warfare arguments. They have repeated the same arguments of
fear. They have repeated the same arguments of risky schemes. And their
arguments have failed.
It is time to look at what has happened because of the vision of the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the Committee on the Budget's vision,
and this Congress' vision. We have balanced the budget. We have saved
Social Security. And we have given tax cuts to middle class Americans.
{time} 1145
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca).
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the budget rule. I am
totally against the budget debate and the budget rule. I think it is
wrong for America. We just heard the debate right now, and we talked
about keeping the budget balanced. It is not just about keeping the
budget balanced today. We are talking about a solvent budget, a budget
that will be there for the future as well, protecting our children for
today, investing in our future, protecting Social Security, taking down
the debt, taking care of drug prescriptions, taking care of what we
need to do.
It is easy to get up here and talk about a balanced budget. Yes, we
can talk about it today, but what is the impact it will have on the
future? That is what is so important right now. It is being fiscally
responsible, taking that budget and doing what needs to be done. We are
not doing that.
The Democrats have a budget proposal right now that deals with taking
care of the American people, working families; taking care of investing
in our future, protecting as well what we need to do, and that is to
make sure that we have good education, quality education, scholarships
that will be available. It is investing in the future.
I ask my colleagues to vote against this rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask again where we stand on the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) has 8 minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Again, I did not have time before, but I think I should call to the
attention of the House, in light of what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich) said earlier, that this resolution offered by the Republicans
does not provide for the abolition of the Social Security earnings
test. If it did, on page 33 of the concurrent resolution of the budget
under function 650, Social Security over the next 5 years would have to
be adjusted by $20 billion. They do not adjust it. They do not provide
for this waiver, repeal of the earnings test, despite what the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) just said.
Now, this is an example of doing something hurriedly, doing something
slipshod and not attending to important detail. They are not doing what
they are purporting to say that it does.
We had the same problem last year. We had a military pay raise on the
floor, retiree increases; and the budget resolution did not reflect
those, did not account for those.
Mr. Speaker, I call it to the attention of the House. Function 650 is
unadjusted, does not reflect the cost that over the next 5 years if we
are going to repeal the earnings test, we have to add $20 billion in
outlay expenditures by the Social Security Trust Fund. Everybody should
know that when voting on this rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a distinguished member of the
Committee on the Budget.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The minority leader's speech today was a speech taken out from
something he said 5 or 6 years ago, and the speech I just heard from
the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget reminds
me of straining out gnats and swallowing camels. We set aside $200
billion for tax cuts. Now, we are told it is irresponsible. We are told
it is outrageous. We are told it is something we cannot afford.
The fact is, in the next 5 years we are going to raise $10 trillion
in revenues, and we are going to return to the American people $200
billion. The tax cut ends the marriage penalty. A good number of
Democrats voted for that. The tax cut repeals Social Security earnings
limit. All Democrats voted for that. The next tax cut, which a good
number of Democrats voted for, reduces the death penalty. We are
expanding educational savings accounts. We are increasing health care
deductibility. We are providing tax breaks for poor communities, and we
are strengthening private pension plans. Mr. Speaker, $200 billion out
of $10 trillion, a 2 percent tax cut. But our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle do not even want to return 2 percent.
Mr. Speaker, we protect Social Security. Last year was the first year
since 1960 that a Congress did not spend Social Security reserves. We
protect it in this budget we are in, and we protect it in the budget we
are now voting on. We are strengthening Medicare. We are setting aside
$40 billion for prescription drugs, $40 billion. That is what we are
setting aside, and yet the minority leader said we were cutting
Medicare.
We retire the public debt. Mr. Speaker, $1 trillion of public debt in
the next 5 years, $1 trillion. It never happened under Democrat rule.
We are doing it now, and it is in this bill. We are providing that tax
fairness for families. It is not just returning revenue to the American
people, but dealing with fairness. Couples should not have to pay taxes
when they get married; seniors
[[Page
H1298]]
should not have to lose Social Security when they work. And we are
restoring Americans defense; we are putting more money in education,
science, and health. We are doing exactly what we should do.
Now, we are going to have 5 amendments come up and we are going to
oppose 4 of them. We are going to oppose them because they do not meet
these tests. We are going to protect Social Security; and if it does
not do that, we will oppose that. We want Medicare prescriptions, $40
billion. If it is not there, we are going to oppose it. We want to
retire debt. We have already retired $302 billion of debt. We are going
to promote tax fairness, which on the other side of the aisle they seem
to be opposed to. We are going to restore America's defense, and we are
going to strengthen and support education and science. That is what we
are going to do in our budget, and we are determined to succeed.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was so struck by what the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said just a moment ago, that this
budget fails to take into account the repeal of the earnings test, and
I want to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) the
rest of my time, save 1 minute, to sum up.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I
would inquire of anyone on this side who wants to explain why the $20
billion is not provided in function 650, spending by Social Security,
to effect this policy that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
just claimed that he is accommodating. Where is it?
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is off-budget, is it not?
Mr. SPRATT. It is indeed.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, function 650 is a discretionary account, is
it not?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, function 650 is a discretionary account, but
it also has an off-budget account.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, it does not include mandatories. We passed
that bill unanimously in the House; it passed unanimously in the
Senate. It will be signed by the President into law. It was initiated
by the Speaker of this House, and it does not need to be included in
function 650, because it is a mandatory outlay and not a discretionary
fund.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would advise the
gentleman simply to look at page 33 and the gentleman will see there is
an on-budget provision and an off-budget provision, and the off-budget
provision is the Social Security benefit spending provision. It is $20
billion short. I mean this is government work, but $20 billion is still
real money. It is a big mistake.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
think the point is clear, is eminently clear. All of Social Security
spending is off-budget. Function 650 is a discretionary account. What
we are voting on here today includes the incorporation of the Social
Security earnings test to the extent that it needs to be included in
this budget document. I think it is misleading to suggest that it was
put together in a slipshod way when the gentleman knows that the
legislation has already passed the House and the Senate and will be
signed into law and that it will not have a material impact on
discretionary outlays.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his explanation, although I think it falls short.
The fact of the matter is there is provision for off-budget spending.
It is on page 33, function 654 and your report; and that function
understates spending over the next 5 years by Social Security to the
tune of $20 billion. Because my colleagues understate spending here in
calculating how much debt reduction they will achieve in the purchase
of our debt held by the public, they owe the State the accomplishment
of debt reduction. That is a significant mistake, unless they want to
say this is a waivable mistake; it is not. It is bad work. It is a good
reason to vote against the rule and to take this thing back and clean
up.
Let me go back to my chart. I did not have enough time to talk about
it. This chart is simple arithmetic. In simple arithmetic, it shows my
good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), whom I have
enormous respect for and who was just on the floor saying they are
going to have a $200 billion tax cut. That is what the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said in the Committee on Rules yesterday, and that is
what he said repeatedly in our markup.
If they have a $200 billion tax cut, then they have to add $50
billion to the amount of tax reduction over the next 5 years. In
addition, if they have a pharmaceutical benefit, a drug benefit in
Medicare, they have to add $40 billion. And when they add those two
things that they both claim are included, $50 billion and $40 billion,
guess what? The surplus disappears.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This bill
does not, in fact, reflect what the Committee on Budget did. Until the
Committee on Rules stops rewriting budgets, we are going to be in a
situation where neither the Committee on the Budget on the Democratic
or Republican side or any House Members have had any real role in its
construction. That is just plain wrong. This is the most important
document which we produce.
Moreover, let me tell my colleagues that in the Committee on Budget
they blocked our ability to put the Bush tax cut up as an amendment.
They do not want to vote on it. It was not a pretty sight in the
Committee on Budget; it was not a pretty sight in the Committee on
Rules. Neither one of them put the Bush tax cut in order for us to be
able to take a vote upon it. And there is a good reason why, because
two-thirds of the Bush tax cut goes to the richest 10 percent of
taxpayers. The richest 1 percent of taxpayers get an average of $50,000
tax cut. It does not leave enough money to shore up Social Security,
Medicare, education, all the way down the line.
So I urge a vote against the rule so that we can debate this issue
fairly, openly and freely; let us have an open vote on the Bush tax
cut. It is the centerpiece of the economic claim which is being
proposed by the other party. All of us should be allowed to vote upon
it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Let me go back just in conclusion to this chart so that everybody
understands it. This is simple arithmetic. This is not smoke and
mirrors. This takes their numbers, their assumption, their claims about
what their budget resolution does and adds them up correctly. They
claim that they are providing for a tax cut over 5 years of $200
billion, so we adjust their tax cut of $150 billion by $50 billion to
show and allow for a tax cut of $200 billion, which is what they claim
on the floor and in committee.
In addition, they claim on the chart that they just showed and
through comments that they have just made that they too will have a
pharmaceutical drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. They assume
costs of that, they have it in a reserve fund, it is $40 billion. If
they are going to claim it, they have to count it. They claim it, but
do not count it. We count it. Add the $50 billion, add the $40 billion,
adjust for debt service, and in 2003, the surplus of which we are all
so proud which we want to protect, we do not want to backslide into
Social Security, the surplus virtually vanishes. In 2004, there is a $6
billion deficit. We are $6 billion into Social Security again if this
resolution is adopted. In 2005, it is down to $2 billion, and the
subsequent years are just as bad. That is the consequence.
Now, we have tax cuts in our budget resolution, the Spratt
substitute, the Democratic budget resolution. We provide for $50
billion net tax cuts over 5 years and $201 billion net tax cuts over 10
years. We think those are reasonable; and we believe that if our
colleagues do the tax cuts that they are talking about that they are
claiming, they are back in deficit, and that is why this rule should be
voted down. Because it waives what we tried to establish as a major
point of order last year in the lockbox when we said, we cannot bring a
resolution, we cannot bring an appropriations bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, just to be sure both sides understand, could
we
[[Page
H1299]]
have a statement of the times again, please?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 5
minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
