[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 8, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1945-H1950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO THE 
  SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES 
                               COMMITTEE

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

                              H. Res. 131

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider reports from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day they are presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to resolutions reported on the 
     legislative day of May 8, 2001, providing for consideration 
     or disposition of any conference report to accompany the 
     concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2002, revising the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 2001, and setting 
     forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2011.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 131 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from 
the Committee on Rules. The rule applies the waiver to a special rule 
reported on the legislative day of May 8, 2001, providing for 
consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany the 
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 83, establishing the congressional 
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2002.
  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 the rule. 
I am at a loss to explain why we are once again preparing to circumvent 
the rules of this body and cram a controversial budget conference down 
the throats of our colleagues. What aversion does the leadership have 
to regular order? Last week's paper caper in the midnight hour was a 
prime illustration of the adage ``haste makes waste.'' In their haste 
to cover up the details of a flawed budget blueprint, the leadership 
wasted hour upon hour of time slated for the people's business.
  Today's rule is more of the same. Martial law is an extremely heavy-
handed process, even for this leadership. Under the rules of the House, 
a two-thirds vote is required to consider a rule on the same day the 
Committee on Rules reports it. But the martial law procedures before us 
allow a rule to be considered on the same day as it is reported rather 
with a majority, rather than a two-thirds vote.
  This rule we are considering would waive the 1-day layover 
requirement. It would also kick off a chain reaction whereby this body 
considers several procedural votes in an elaborate game to recommit 
last week's ill-fated budget conference report and bring up a revised 
version for consideration. Given what we have learned about the 
forthcoming conference bill on the budget, we should not be surprised. 
I suspect that the longer the measure is exposed to the light of day, 
the more likely it will shrivel up and die.
  I would note for the record that no Democrats had input on the 
conference report. No Democrats were invited to participate in writing 
this agreement, nor were any Democrats given any information regarding 
the document that will be the budget guideline for this Nation. The 
word in the caucus room is that the Budget chairman refused to return 
the phone calls of our ranking member. This is a far cry from changing 
the tone in Washington that the current leadership prides itself on.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just respond to say that the reason we are using the 
procedures that we are is to get us timely to the debate on the budget 
which we hope to have tomorrow. The rules covering the conference 
reports, preserving the prerogatives of both Chambers of the House, 
require that we recommit the conference report.
  We have created a way to do that this evening, it seems appropriate 
to do, and then we will proceed tomorrow to debate on the budget. I 
think that the argument now that the minority has not had a chance to 
see the budget is a little bit strange considering we have just had 4 
days, an ample time to review and ample time to consider that document.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this budget. As 
someone who grew up in relatively humble circumstances, in a one-
bedroom home in Orlando, Florida, I learned some important things about 
life at a young age.
  First, I learned that single mothers and working families desperately 
need tax relief. This budget provides that tax relief to the tune of 
$1.35 trillion.
  Second, I learned that a first-class education is a child's passport 
out of poverty. This budget represents the largest investment in 
education in the history of the United States, including a $1 billion 
increase in Pell grants and $5 billion for reading in grades 
kindergarten through third grade.
  I also learned that senior citizens depend on their Social Security 
checks and prescription drugs to live. This budget puts the Social 
Security surpluses in a lockbox and spends up to $300 billion for 
prescription drugs for seniors.

[[Page H1946]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the budget. This is what we came 
here for.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the House-
Senate conference report on the budget for fiscal year 2002. Last week, 
after excluding Democrats from any meaningful participation in the 
conference, the House leadership tried to ram this resolution down our 
throats. Fortunately, they failed because they could not even make the 
entire bill available for Members' consideration. Under closer 
inspection it is easy to see why they believe the bill could not bear 
the light of day.
  The information we have been able to review to date indicates that in 
fiscal year 2002 the conferees approved significantly lower funding for 
veterans programs than the funding levels passed earlier by either the 
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs or in the House budget resolution. 
Under the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), 
chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the House managed to 
almost double the President's meager request for discretionary spending 
for the Nation's veterans, but that effort now appears to have been for 
naught.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has not kept its promises to 
America's veterans. After applauding themselves on the funding 
increases for veterans programs, my Republican colleagues realized that 
realistically their numbers just did not add up. They will tell you 
that they will fix the harm they have done to these programs with 
emergency spending. But if that is the case, why do they not just do it 
in this resolution? Ultimately they were not able to reconcile their 
promises to veterans with the giant tax cut they have promised to 
America's wealthiest taxpayers.
  The joint resolution will eliminate the gains made for veterans 
programs in the House and Senate resolutions for fiscal year 2002. The 
House added $730 million to the President's budget for veterans 
programs while the Senate passed two separate resolutions that would 
have added about $1.7 billion to the Bush request of about a $1 billion 
increase for veterans programs. So we are now back to Bush, and that is 
bad news for the Nation's veterans.
  Veterans groups agree that the Bush budget is inadequate. In a press 
release this February, the American Legion said, ``The Bush 
administration's fiscal year 2002 budget for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs is not good enough. Frankly this is a budget that is 
insufficient to fulfill the campaign promises George W. Bush made.''
  In a letter to the Senate from four major veterans service 
organizations, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, and Disabled American Veterans, the increase recommended 
by the Bush administration was described as an ``amount that would not 
even cover the costs of mandated salary increases and the effects of 
inflation.''
  I will vote against this inadequate funding resolution for veterans. 
The American people need to understand the effect of this overblown tax 
cut. Our veterans will pay the price.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I understand that even as we speak, the Senate is rewriting this 
conference report which we are supposed to vote on today and that there 
is another breakdown going on.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, as someone who loves baseball, I want to 
say thank you to the President for bringing tee ball to the White 
House. Seeing those youngsters enjoy themselves on the White House lawn 
was really terrific. But let me just say that the President should put 
his money where his photo op is.
  The budget that the President and the Republican leadership are 
pushing through this House cuts important programs that affect our 
children's education, health and well-being, all for the sake of a tax 
cut that provides 43 percent of its benefits to the wealthiest 1 
percent of Americans.
  Who gets cut? Pediatric graduate medical education, training for 
future pediatricians to care for our kids, gets cut by $35 million. No 
new funding for Head Start, a program that helps to prepare youngsters 
for school. No new funding for reading and mathematics education 
programs that serve our children, and not a dime more in this budget 
for that program for the next 10 years.
  There are 7 million children between the ages of 8 and 13 who go home 
alone every single day. Yet the President cuts the 21st Century 
Learning Center program that provides after-school educational 
opportunities for our kids. The President slashes $1.4 million from the 
universal newborn hearing screening program, an 18 percent cut.
  Photo ops are one thing, but you have to put your money where your 
values are. That is what budgets are about. They are about values.

                              {time}  1715

  It is not about programs. There are some fundamental American values 
at stake in this debate, values that say everyone should have a chance 
to succeed, every child should have the best education and a secure 
retirement. Those values, every child should have the best education, 
the best health care, and every single senior should have a decent and 
secure retirement, those values, for all of the President's rhetoric, 
are not in the President's budget. This is reflective of the priorities 
and the values of this administration. They are not focused on American 
families or American children.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Budget.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the budget that the Republicans brought to the House 
late last Thursday has more than just two pages missing. It is a budget 
full of plugs and placeholders, and what is really missing are real 
numbers.
  Take defense, the largest account in the discretionary budget. This 
budget allocates $325 billion to defense, basically what Clinton and 
Cohen would have spent. But $325 billion is not a real number. It is a 
placeholder, pending Mr. Rumsfeld's review of what is needed to 
transform our military. Reports indicate when the time is right, after 
the tax cuts are enacted, Mr. Rumsfeld will request at least $25 
billion a year more than this budget provides.
  Take next the rest of all appropriated spending. This budget holds 
discretionary spending to an increase of 3.8 percent next year and in 
years thereafter to 2.6 percent below inflation. This is tight, really 
tight, a lot stricter than any limit to which spending has been held in 
recent years. If spending is capped at these levels, and a few favored 
programs such as NIH and transportation get outsized disproportionate 
increases, then many others will have to be cut. Rather than indicate 
these unpopular and, some would say, unlikely cuts now, the Republican 
budget simply increases discretionary spending by the rate of inflation 
in every function across the board, except defense, which gets more. 
Then they bury in the last catchall function of the budget $6 billion 
of unspecified cuts in 2002 and a total of $67 billion in unspecified 
cuts over the next 10 years.
  Now, if we want to see what happens, what results from indiscriminate 
budgeting, look at education. Remember how the President said in his 
State of the Union that education would get the largest increase in his 
budget? That turned out to be a modest increase of $21.4 billion above 
inflation over the next 10 years. When the budget was open to amendment 
on the Senate floor, Senators voted three times to debit tax cuts and 
credit education to the tune of 294 billion additional dollars for 
education. It was a great victory, but short-lived.
  Once Republicans got the budget in the closed conference, they not 
only deleted all the adds made in the Senate but also cut the 
President's request of $21.3 billion. This budget now treats education 
like every other function; inflation only for 10 years, nothing more.

[[Page H1947]]

  Consider finally the initiative to add prescription drug coverage to 
Medicare. The President asked for $153 billion over 10 years to pay for 
drug benefits. In Congress, key Republicans in both Houses called this 
amount inadequate. Senate Democrats moved to raise the provision for 
drugs and prevailed. In their conference then, the Republican 
leadership did not pare down this increase. In conference this was not 
pared back. The next worst thing was done to it. Instead of setting 
aside some of the surplus, general fund surplus, to pay for this added 
benefit, they allow the $300 billion for drug benefits to be drawn from 
the Medicare Trust Fund.
  In the long run, this trust fund, the Medicare Trust Fund, faces a 
serious shortfall, as we all know. If the cost of prescription drugs is 
drawn from the trust fund, it will only hasten the day of insolvency.
  It is tax cuts that drive this budget, and tax reduction is the most 
understated number of all. The budget calls for tax cuts of $1.35 
billion, $300 billion less than the President first requested, but 
Republicans from Senator Lott to Secretary O'Neill have said this is 
just round one for tax reduction, and I credit them for their honesty 
because more tax is surely coming. This is not the final number for tax 
reduction.
  When all of these numbers are added up, all of these plugs, all of 
these placeholders, and add up the likely action that will be layered 
on top of it, the bottom line in this budget goes negative as early as 
next year.
  Within the next 10 years, we will be $342 billion into the Medicare 
Trust Fund, $255 billion into the Social Security Trust Fund. Maybe 
that is why the conference was kept secret and the budget was not shown 
to us until midnight last Thursday.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to say again that the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) played no role whatever in this budget and 
was unable to even get his phone calls returned, and I regret that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, this budget ought to come out with a 
warning for senior citizens: Do not look for a decent prescription drug 
benefit here. President Bush, one may remember, when he was a 
candidate, promised a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. 
Instead, this budget has a measly proposal available only to seniors 
that make under $11,500 a year. This is not going to help people like 
the Reinauers in my district. He is 75 and she is 71, but they make too 
much money to get help under the Republican plan.
  Mr. Reinauer wrote to me last February saying, ``We are going broke 
paying for prescription drugs.'' He is paying $324 a month. Mrs. 
Reinauer has a drug bill that will knock your eyes out, and she pays 
the full price.
  This is a budget that does more for a million millionaires than it 
does for 39 million Medicare beneficiaries that are waiting for a real 
prescription drug benefit. That is priorities.
  This is not what President Bush promised when he was a candidate and 
it is not what senior citizens deserve to see in this budget.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Last week, the House 
was kept in session until 3:00 a.m. waiting to vote on a budget that 
our side had not even seen and had no part in creating. That is 
bipartisanship, according to the Republican model. Then we could not 
consider the bill until this week because of two missing pages. Since 
then, those two pages have apparently been found, but there are three 
more important elements missing: Those are honesty, common sense and 
fairness.
  The resolution we are considering tonight is missing honesty. It does 
not include resources necessary to offer seniors a universal voluntary 
prescription drug benefit under Medicare. In fact, the budget 
resolution shortens the solvency of the Medicare program. George Bush 
and his allies in the majority party promised to include prescription 
drug benefits under Medicare over and over in ad after ad, yet this 
budget falls woefully and embarrassingly short. This budget is missing 
common sense. The budget proposes large increases in defense spending 
but the budget they put forward does not pay for them.
  In some instances, like paying our soldiers a decent wage, I fully 
support defense increases. But when it comes to $100 billion missile 
defense systems, that is not common sense, it is uncommon foolishness.
  Finally, the resolution is missing fairness. I have written the Tax 
Deduction Fairness Act of 2001 which would allow taxpayers in States 
like ours the option to deduct either their State income taxes or their 
State sales taxes. This would restore fairness to the Tax Code for 
residents in my State and in the States of Tennessee, Texas, Nevada, 
Wyoming, Florida and South Dakota. Such proposals as this were not 
included in this budget. This budget demands that our States subsidize 
the rest of the tax cuts for the rest of the country. This body 
deserves better. We deserve true bipartisanship, true discussion, true 
common sense, and the seniors and children of this country deserve true 
health care reform.
  This budget does not provide it. We deserve better.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, at the onset, I would like to emphatically state my 
opposition to this rule, because this process is shameful and 
insulting.
  Mr. Speaker, this process is shameful and insulting because it denies 
an opportunity to act responsible by informing the American people that 
the numbers in this budget do not add up unless the Social Security and 
Medicare Trust Funds are reduced drastically.
  I regret that the budget process has come to this stage. We started 
off with such promise in the House Committee on the Budget of having a 
fair and open debate on priorities in the budget. The Democrats 
expected to lose many of the votes in discussions because we are in the 
minority, but we were at least given an opportunity for an open and 
fair debate.
  President Bush has insisted that he wanted to set a new tone of 
respect and bipartisanship. What really happened to this fair and open 
bipartisanship with regard to negotiations on the budget?
  On last Wednesday, I read an article in the Washington Times that the 
White House and the so-called congressional budget negotiators agreed 
on an 11-year $1.35 trillion tax cut plan. The question in my mind is, 
who are these negotiators?
  The Democrats on the Committee on the Budget were completely shut out 
of the process. There was no input allowed by the House Democratic 
leadership or the House Democrats on these budget cuts or tax 
adjustments. This kind of behavior is unworthy of the honorable Members 
of Congress and it is very dangerous politics that affects the core of 
democracy and fair play in our Nation.
  This is regrettable because we are balancing the budget on the backs 
of our seniors. These numbers will not add up unless we reduce the 
Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Yet the President is 
promising Americans that they can have their cake and eat it, too. He 
is promising a national missile defense system, far-reaching education 
reform, prescription drug program, and the list goes on to include 
inevitably a large additional tax cut that would mostly benefit big 
business and the wealthy.
  I want the American citizens to know that they are being overpromised 
and deceived in this budget process. As a result, we cannot live up to 
providing improved education, prescription drugs for seniors, securing 
Social Security and Medicare, while paying down the debt and giving 
away a $1.35 trillion tax cut which will probably result in a $2 
trillion tax cut.

[[Page H1948]]

  The attitude projected in this process is that we are not listening 
and that we will not consider recommended adjustments or changes. This 
is in spite of the Senate Democrats' effort to allow for increased 
educational funding in this conference report. All of the $294 billion 
for educational funds were dropped. Certainly this is not a bipartisan 
process. To pass this budget means we are breaking our commitment to 
our seniors, and I urge the defeat of the rule.
  To pass this budget means--breaking our commitments to our senior 
citizens by failing to protect the Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds; denying our youth and children the best educational 
opportunities possible; and depriving the poor and needy food and 
services for their welfare.
  As we attempt to balance the priorities of our nation, we should have 
at least agreed with the Senate by passing a conference report that 
reflects the needs of our people--like reducing the tax package; paying 
down more of the national debt; committing new resources for Medicare 
prescription drugs for all seniors, to provide quality education 
programs, to meet agricultural needs, and health care needs. There is 
room for tax relief for everyone, but this tax relief should be 
considered within the context of ALL of our national needs.
  I am insulted by the idea of invoking the Martial Rule. This reflects 
a disrespectful tactic by the House Majority of this budget process 
which avoids Democratic input into this budget, and implies that their 
views are irrelevant or insignificant. There is no doubt that this 
conference report will raid both the medicare and the social security 
trust funds. As trustees of this nations wealth, we must make hard 
choices about how to allocate the resources of the American people. The 
wrong choices will affect the lives of millions of Americans for years 
to come.
  My fellow colleagues, I urge you to vote ``no'' on the Martial Law 
Rule. I vote ``no'' out of principle since neither the Democratic 
Members of the Budget Committee nor the Democratic Leadership were 
given a level playing field in this process.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the gap between rhetoric 
and reality has never been wider than in this budget, and I am going to 
concentrate today especially on the education budget because that gap 
is truly massive in that area.
  We are being asked to support a budget that provides no increase over 
inflation for education funding, and even falls short of what the 
President asks for in his budget plan. Despite all the talk from the 
White House, despite all the talk from our Republican friends, 
education is not a priority in this budget.
  We have serious education needs. We need to reduce class size. We 
need to construct more schools, get our kids out of trailers. We need 
to recruit and train teachers. We need to boost Title I aid for 
disadvantaged school districts. We need to close the achievement gap 
between majority and minority children. We need to increase Pell grants 
for college opportunity. We need to meet the Federal Government's 
obligation to IDEA special education funding. We need to expand Head 
Start. The list of needs is long. This budget comes up short on every 
count.
  With this budget, President Bush and the Republicans break their 
promise to increase the maximum Pell grant to $5,100. During the 
campaign, Candidate Bush promised to raise the maximum Pell grant award 
to $5,100 for freshmen. Unfortunately, President Bush and the 
Republicans have fallen at least $1.5 billion short of the amount 
needed to fulfill that promise.
  The President's budget provides only enough funding to raise the 
maximum award of $3,750 by about $150, which is far less than Pell 
grant increases in recent years, and this budget does even less than 
what the President requested.

                              {time}  1730

  Then let us talk about Gear Up. Gear Up, that program already 
underfunded, that program to get colleges and private businesses 
engaged in mentoring high school students, closing that achievement 
gap, preparing them for college. This Gear Up program, praised by 
Secretary of Education Paige when he was in Houston as head of the 
system there, President Bush wants to cut Gear Up by 20 percent, 
meaning 200,000 fewer kids being helped; and now this Republican budget 
provides even less funding.
  Bipartisan majorities in the Senate adopted amendments to add $294 
billion over 10 years for education over the House-passed budget, but 
the final version of this budget eliminates those increases. In fact, 
education receives less in this budget than the woeful House-passed 
budget by almost $1 billion next year and $21.4 billion over 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't want to just throw money at education and hope 
for improvements; but without new resources, crumbling classrooms 
cannot be repaired, new schools cannot be built, teachers cannot be 
hired and Pell Grants cannot be increased. We must do better. We need 
more than talk. Reject this budget.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are debating this motion before us to try and fix the 
budget filing foul-up of the majority from the other night. You know, 
it is one thing for the majority to be unfair; it is another thing for 
the majority to be inept. But for the majority to be both on the same 
piece of legislative business, it is a bit much.
  By delaying until after midnight the attempted consideration of the 
budget, they utterly deprived almost half of this body of the chance of 
even seeing the numbers they are proposing, literally, until the hour 
of the vote. But, as we know, that fouled copying machine that withheld 
two critical pages stopped them dead in their tracks.
  You know, it kind of shakes your confidence. My goodness, if they 
cannot collate, you do not know whether they can calculate. And now 
that we have actually had a chance to survey the numbers, we can see 
indeed there are some very serious problems in calculation, substance 
problems that go far beyond the embarrassing procedural foul-up they 
brought upon themselves.
  Let us talk specifically about one area, education. This is an area 
where our new President has called for more Federal leadership in 
improving the quality of our schools. In fact, he committed $900 
million over the next year, $21.4 billion over the 10 years of the 
budget.
  We passed the President's recommendation when the budget was 
considered in the House over to the Senate, where they said that is a 
good start, but we need to do more. With a bipartisan vote, they voted 
to add $294 billion in additional resources into the budget package.
  What happened? Well, when we finally got to the numbers of their 
package, numbers they hoped we would not get to look at and debate 
fully before this vote we are about to take, all of that money for our 
schools, all of that money for better education for our children, was 
stripped out; even President Bush's recommended funding, gone.
  Ultimately, all that was left was an inflationary adjustment that 
amounts to $12.90 per kid per year. We are not going to improve schools 
on that pittance. We need to adhere to the President's recommended 
levels and beyond. More money for schools. Reject this budget.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I guess I rise today in opposition to the 
rule, but the truth is this rule means nothing, this budget means 
nothing, because there are no numbers here that anyone can tell you an 
answer to.
  Most people in my district over the weekend were asking me what we 
are going to do this week, what is going to happen with the budget, how 
much money is going into education, how much money is going into health 
care? The truth is, not a single Member of this House or Senate can 
answer those questions based on this budget. They do not know. They 
have no idea how much money is going into education.
  I can tell you one thing, the Medicare system, no matter what number 
they

[[Page H1949]]

use, this budget will bring the Medicare budget to insolvency much more 
quickly than before. Community health centers will be cut. I do not 
know how much, but they will be. Housing will be cut in virtually every 
single program; from $700 million cut for public housing capital 
improvement, to a $25 million cut in rural housing programs.
  Training for pediatricians will be cut. We think we know a number on 
that, but we are not sure. The National Institutes of Health will be 
cut. We are not sure how much, but we think it will be cut. Ryan White 
AIDS grants will definitely be cut. Drug elimination grants will be 
cut. The COPS program will be cut. We are not sure how much, but it 
will be cut. Retraining programs for all those people who are now 
unemployed, every day we turn on the TV and read the paper, we read 
about more Americans getting unemployed, but this budget has no money 
to deal with that. We are not sure how much the Department of Defense 
is going to go up. We have no idea.
  That is why at the end of this budget, you will see what is a huge 
slush fund. There is no other way to put it. It is the first time in my 
adult life I have ever seen a negative slush fund, however. It is 
negative $67 billion, because the numbers do not add up, and what that 
says is when we get around to it, we will cut something; we do not know 
what, we will cut something to make this work.
  I defy anyone at home to tell me what a negative slush fund is, 
except a budget that does not work. That is why I rise today to oppose 
this budget, to oppose this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time back to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
rule and to a budget conference agreement that jeopardizes fiscal 
discipline and critical social programs to make room for an enormous 
tax cut skewed toward the wealthy and based on surplus projections that 
may never materialize.
  Despite a modest reduction in the tax cut originally proposed by the 
administration, it is still far too large. To pay for it, the agreement 
usurps funds that should go to other critical priorities, like reducing 
our debt, creating a stable defense, improving education, providing 
affordable health care, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, 
and, yes, a real prescription drug benefit for our seniors, 
particularly in light of the fact that just today, as reported, 
spending on prescription drugs has increased by almost 19 percent.
  Furthermore, this fundamentally flawed agreement would cut Federal 
programs that are vital to our Nation's small businesses: worker, 
health, environmental protection, energy efficiency and housing needs. 
This budget also shortchanges our vast transportation and 
infrastructure needs, decreases funding for critical law enforcement 
programs, and cuts budget authority for the benefits our veterans have 
earned.
  We would all like to reward hard-working Americans by returning some 
of their tax dollars, but we would also need to ensure that our most 
pressing needs are met. These are real concerns that warrant a real 
budget based on real numbers, not partisan rhetoric that falsely touts 
cooperation and accord. Bipartisan negotiations involve a lot more than 
just inviting a couple of folks over to the White House for lunch.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this ill-conceived 
Republican proposal and supporting instead a sensible, well-balanced 
budget resolution that speaks to the needs of every American family.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that maybe 
the Senate copier was on to something when it split these two pages 
out. This conference report makes me want to gag when I think about 
what happened. The obfuscation and deception that has been the hallmark 
of this budget process is truly worthy of the conference report.
  The majority insisted on voting on a budget resolution before seeing 
the President's budget. That was the first thing. Then the majority 
shut out the Democrats from any consideration on this conference report 
and then tried to sneak a vote past the American people before they 
even had a chance to see their cynical handiwork.
  I do not blame the Republican leadership for trying to hide the 
details of this budget from the people. Nobody would be proud of this 
budget that pays for tax cuts with the futures of our children. Look at 
all the child-hostile measures in this budget. It cuts Head Start; it 
makes child care harder and more less affordable for working families. 
It cuts Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Part C, which helps 
prepare disabled infants and toddlers for school. It cuts the 21st 
Century Community Learning Centers program, which keeps kids safe and 
productive after school. It cuts the Mental Health Services block 
grant, which is what everyone tells me is what works in our States when 
providing that crucial community support for our most vulnerable 
children. It cuts all of these things, and yet we say that we have a 
President that wants to put his emphasis on education.
  It certainly is not relevant in this budget. We need to see the 
dollars, or else that will be a hollow promise of his being an 
education President.
  Deception seems to be the name of the game because the majority's 
irresponsibility for what is going on with this tax cut plan is what is 
making this such a vulnerable budget to begin with, because it will 
make it unable for us to meet our obligations long-term for this Nation 
while being able to cut the taxes for the most wealthy in this country. 
That is why I think that we should make sure these two pages are 
included, and we ought to know what the full impact of this budget is.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that we have to resort to these types of 
extraordinary rules. We could have bipartisan agreement on a budget. It 
would not have been difficult for the majority to reach out to the 
Democrats and come out with a budget that we all could support, that 
would provide for tax relief as well as protecting Social Security and 
Medicare and the priority programs, and, most importantly, reducing our 
national debt.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason why I will not support this budget is that I 
believe it provides for tax cuts that will be too large, allowing us to 
protect Social Security and Medicare, not only this year, but in future 
years, and would allow us to continue to make the type of investments 
in education and the environment and other priorities that are 
important for the people I represent.
  But, most tragically, Mr. Speaker, I think this budget will do 
exactly what the National Review indicates it will do, and that says 
``Do not fear a deficit.'' ``Do not fear a deficit.''
  I think that there are many who understand that this budget, if 
implemented, will lead to deficit spending again and an effort to 
downsize government. We do not want to see deficits again, yet I 
believe this budget will lead in that direction.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I regret that we have not used the time until now to 
work together to bring Democrats and Republicans together on a budget 
that will allow for reasonable tax relief and allow us to pay down our 
national debt, rather than adding potential red ink to it.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this budget and to work together for 
the American people.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize it might be a little late to do this, but in 
the interest of accuracy and trying to refocus what we are actually 
about here, what we are debating is the rule that waives the 
requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to the same day 
consideration of certain resolutions reported by the Committee on 
Rules.
  We are not debating the budget here, and the vote we are going to 
take is not on the budget. In fact, if you wish to get to the budget 
debate, I urge you

[[Page H1950]]

to support the rule. The majority is trying to bring the budget to the 
floor so that the debate we have already heard, some good introductory 
discussions in this past half-hour, can come to full-blown debate under 
the conference rules on the floor of the House. So I am going to ask 
everybody please to support this rule so we can in fact get on with the 
budget debate tomorrow.
  I think that I have heard some concern that was a little puzzling, a 
lot of conference discussion about this particular budget, which my 
colleague from New York says is being rewritten by the other body as we 
speak. If that in fact is the case, then why are we debating a document 
that is not going to be relevant?

                              {time}  1745

  So it seems to me that we should have focused our remarks on the 
expedition that the majority is trying to bring forth, and that is a 
journey to the budget debate as quickly as possible in the broad 
daylight on a beautiful day in Washington, tomorrow, Wednesday, May 9.
  I think that those who are still talking about being deprived of the 
opportunity to see the budget, whether it is the budget we are going to 
see or not, need to remember that they have had 4 days over the 
weekend, and indeed, it sounds as if some members have spent some time, 
and that is useful.
  Those who would say that the majority has not been particularly apt 
or particularly fair in this process are entitled to their opinion, but 
I think those that come to Washington to look for perfection ought not 
to be the ones who cast the first stones. I am reminded that I am human 
and I readily admit I make errors, and I have machines in my office 
that jam occasionally, they are called copy machines, and if members 
have copy machines that do not jam, I would like to know what the brand 
is, because most every brand I have tried jammed, and that, in fact, is 
what happened. We had a jammed copy machine, and in our interest to try 
and get the debate started, we were not prudent enough to catch the 
fact that there were still two pieces of paper caught in the copy 
machine. We did catch it; but we just did not catch it immediately, so 
we misfiled.
  I know that error takes place, and I do not want to be the one to 
cast the first stone; but since the stone has been cast, I generally 
remember in my earlier term here, I think it was back about 1992, there 
was an embarrassing moment when the present minority was in the 
majority when somehow or other we lost track of $25 billion worth of 
Russian aid and the Speaker of the House went through a very 
considerable scramble to get it back. I do not recall us making a 
Federal case out of that, and I think that we solved that problem.
  I also believe this problem is a much more minor problem; this only 
involves perhaps giving the opportunity of Members 4 more days to 
review what might, in fact, be our budget document for budget debate.
  So I think that we have come out ahead on this. Whether that was by 
design or by circumstance does not matter. We, in fact, are going to 
have a good chance to debate this budget; and everybody is going to 
have a chance to see what is in it.
  But all of that is not relevant to what is before us, which is the 
rule to get on with the same-day provision that will allow us to get on 
to debating the budget. So without further comment on the fact that I 
think we have had an interesting preview of what might come in a budget 
debate, I would urge that we support this rule; and then the Committee 
on Rules will soon bring another rule which will also get us that much 
closer to the budget debate. So, if my colleagues will support that 
rule as well, we will then have two good rules in place to get us to 
the budget debate tomorrow; and we can vote on the budget rule tomorrow 
and then on the conference report, if all goes well.
  Having said that, I urge the support of all my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this resolution are postponed.

                          ____________________