[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 8, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1951-H1956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR RECOMMITTAL OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE CONCURRENT 
  RESOLUTION 83, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2002

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 134 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 134

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution the 
     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 is hereby 
     recommitted to the committee of conference.

  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 gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
my friend and colleague from the Committee on Rules; 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 on this 
matter.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us grants us a rule that provides 
that upon adoption of the rule the conference report to accompany H. 
Con. Res. 83 shall be recommitted to the conference committee.
  Simply put, and in plain English for Members, what we are doing is we 
are taking care of the necessary procedure to get the budget debate on 
the floor tomorrow. What is going to happen is we are going to pass 
this rule, then the matter is going to go to the other body. The 
Committee on Rules is going to meet a little later in the evening, put 
out a rule to get the new conference report on the floor tomorrow with 
an appropriate rule, and the House will go about the business of 
deliberating and voting on the budget, which we are all anxious to get 
to after the long opportunity we have had to review it in the past 
several days.
  Therefore, this is somewhat of a technical matter; but it is 
important that in order to continue our progress towards getting the 
budget on the floor that we adopt this rule. I do not think there is 
anything unusual about it or controversial about it, and I urge all 
Members' support.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to recommit this flawed 
document. I urge the leadership to use this opportunity to craft a real 
budget with input from both Republicans and Democrats.
  The infamous two missing pages are hardly the only flaws in this so-
called agreement. Other pages are missing as well. For instance, 
waiting in the wings of this Congress are a number of popular tax cuts, 
including between $85 billion and $115 billion in business tax breaks. 
Billions more in tax cuts, with the elimination of the estate tax for 
the Nation's wealthiest citizens, and the elimination of the so-called 
marriage penalty tax this Congress, are moving through the legislative 
process. An honest budget would have included these provisions. The 
House leadership knows full well that at the end of this tax cut frenzy 
we will surpass the administration's initial proposal of $1.8 trillion.
  Also missing are the President's big-ticket items. For starters, we 
seem to be missing the page that factors in the likely cost of a 
missile defense system. Nobody knows if it will work, and nobody knows 
how much it will cost; but estimates run up to $300 billion.
  We also seem to be missing the page that explains how we pay for the 
conventional defense buildup being planned by the administration at a 
cost of $250 billion over the next decade. How is this consistent with 
a budget that makes no room for increases in defense spending beyond 
those already proposed by the Clinton administration?

[[Page H1952]]

  Also, I have yet to find the page that explains how we will maintain 
government services in the face of a growing population while 
increasing spending no faster than inflation. Perhaps the leadership 
can explain what unspecified drastic cuts to the tune of $400 billion 
they have planned and how will these cuts not impact Social Security 
and Medicare.
  I urge the leadership to turn over all missing pages and expose these 
numbers; and, moreover, I would caution my colleagues on the conference 
committee against signing their name to a document that is patently and 
shamelessly dishonest in its current form.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I intend to reserve the balance of my time 
until further notice.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, over the last 5 years we have increased the 
education budget, on average, 13 percent a year. This year, President 
Bush has cut that rate of increase in his budget in half to 5.8 
percent. The House Republican budget resolution did the same thing that 
the President did. The Senate then said, that is woefully inadequate 
for education; and they added $240 billion for education over 10 years 
by taking it out of the jumbo-size tax cuts. This resolution not only 
eliminates the entire $240 billion add-on over 10 years for education, 
it also takes funding for education $25 billion below the President's 
own budget over the next 10 years, and for this coming year alone takes 
the education funding $1 billion below President Bush's budget. That is 
no compromise. That is returning to yesteryear.
  If this is the Republican idea of how we put education first, I would 
hate to see their idea of how we do not. Everything, including 
education, is being sacrificed to jumbo-size tax cuts for people making 
over $200,000 a year. That does not represent the priority judgments of 
the American people. This bill should not only be voted down, it should 
be laughed down.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I 
do so with a great deal of disappointment; disappointment in the 
procedure that is being followed. But I understand why, and I 
appreciate very much that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
has been the lone exception of trying to seek some kind of 
bipartisanship on this budget. Obviously, he has been overruled by the 
leadership, the same leadership that brings this rule today that has to 
have martial law to pass the budget. Martial law to pass the budget, 
after we spent 16\1/2\ hours on this floor last Thursday waiting on the 
majority to come up with their idea of what the budget should look 
like.
  Now, I can give my colleagues 10 solid reasons why they ought to vote 
against the budget, but that is not what we are talking about today. 
What we are talking about today is the rule. I do not know how much 
longer the majority is going to be in lockstep with breaking every rule 
and precedent of the House that they used to criticize us on this side 
of the aisle for doing, only I do not believe we ever did as good a job 
at it as they are doing tonight and as they did last week. This is 
ridiculous.
  As one who would like to see some semblance of bipartisanship on the 
budget, I came to the conclusion that was impossible, and I understand 
why. And as a member of the minority, I understand why we are not going 
to win any. But at some point in time, I would hope there would be just 
a tinge of conscience as to the procedures of the House and as to how 
we might get a little better comity in working on things like defense 
and education and health care and agriculture, other than the manner in 
which this particular budget that this rule makes in order will do.
  I will guarantee my colleagues there will be bipartisanship when we 
start dealing with the specifics. So many of my colleagues on the 
majority have chosen under their leadership to ignore that to bring 
this rule to the floor. I urge a vote ``no,'' and let us go back and do 
it right.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  A quarter of a century ago, when the budget process was established, 
it was established so that we could look at all of the numbers in a 
measured, considered way, the income and the outgo, and make sure the 
numbers added up. It was not intended to be done in the dark of night 
in a hurried manner with some numbers there and some numbers not there 
and who knows what is there. Well, that is what we have ended up with 
today and this is a flagrant violation of the whole spirit of the 
budget process.
  And in this hurry to get this tax cut through in an ill-considered 
way, we end up with a terrible shortchanging of the American people. 
Take education, for example. Inadequate consideration for our national 
need to recruit teachers, to find ways to get the 2.2 million teachers 
that we need in the next 10 years to keep up with the retirement and 
attrition in the ranks of teaching. Insufficient attention to the need 
for new facilities and modern classrooms, where classes of a reasonable 
size can meet in good conditions.
  And with insufficient attention to the other concerns. Take special 
education, for example: under IDEA, if we are going to meet our 
national obligation, the Federal Government's obligation for special 
education, that would come to something on the order of $100 billion 
over 10 years. Do we find that in this budget resolution? No, we do 
not.
  Education is shortchanged at every turn. And what we have got, coming 
from the House-Senate conference committee, appears to be a zeroing of 
the education budget, holding it at a level that does not even keep up 
with inflation. This is totally inadequate; and it is the result of 
this hurried, inadequate process.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that this week Congress 
will vote on a budget that threatens the future of our Nation's most 
valuable asset: our children.
  No wonder the Republican leadership tried to rush the budget to the 
floor last week without allowing adequate consideration. But then I 
believe they thought they could pull the wool over our eyes by 
misplacing two of the pages of that budget. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic 
that the two missing pages contained the details of the $1.35 trillion 
tax cut.
  It appears that those two pages are the essence of how the Republican 
leadership will pay for their massive tax break; by cutting funding for 
vital services for American women and their families, including 
temporary assistance for needy families, workforce training and 
employment programs, community anti-violence and anti-drug programs, 
and overall education for the funding of our children.
  Moreover, by prioritizing tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, 
Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is signing away the future of 
Social Security and the Medicare Trust Fund. In addition to harming 
children, it appears they want to undermine the future of grandparents, 
too.
  This is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule to 
recommit; vote against this budget.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sandlin).
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, in the words of President Reagan, there 
they go again. Fresh from the missing page debacle, we are back with 
more of the same. It seems that pieces of paper are not the only things 
missing as we appear here today.
  The administration and the leadership talk a very good game. They 
tell us they want to increase education spending, they tell us they 
want a prescription drug plan for seniors, they tell us they want 
funding for disaster relief. But the numbers say something entirely 
different, because they just do not compute; they just do not add up. 
The American public will not be fooled. Because, in fact, it seems 
there is a lot more missing than two pieces of paper.
  Missing: there was $21 billion in education funding missing from this 
budget. This budget, as filed last week, provides even less money than 
the President requested in his budget; $21 billion

[[Page H1953]]

less than requested. The leadership talks a good game about a 
bipartisan education bill; and that is all well and good, but having a 
bipartisan bill and talking about it does not do much when a good-faith 
effort is not made to fund education for our children.

                              {time}  1845

  Missing: The explanation. The explanation of how to adequately fund a 
Medicare prescription plan is missing from the budget. President Bush 
has suggested that we spend about $115 billion on a program to help 
seniors. Everyone else in the country seems to acknowledge that it will 
take at least a minimum of $300 billion to provide anything close to a 
fair and adequate benefit for senior citizens, but this budget fails to 
pay for such a benefit.
  Missing: Another $5 billion is missing to cover natural disasters. In 
the years that I have represented my district, we have been hit by 
tornadoes, floods, droughts, ice storms. My citizens depend on FEMA, 
and FEMA has provided relief for the citizens of my district. However, 
this budget completely X's that out. This $5 billion is important and 
should not be dropped due to a procedural dispute.
  Mr. Speaker, much more is missing than two pieces of paper. Much more 
is missing than two pages in this budget. The priorities of America are 
missing. The greatness of America is missing. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for the motion to recommit.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
resolution. This conference report which we are going to debate tonight 
has some fundamental flaws in it which should lead us to go back to the 
drawing board. I want to highlight what I think is the most egregious 
problem.
  We have actually shortchanged education below what the President has 
proposed. Many of us applauded the President during his campaign for 
talking about leaving no child behind and doing more to help our 
schools reduce class size, attract qualified teachers and build safe 
and clean, modern schools. He proposed an increase in education 
spending which many of us thought was simply a beginning, simply a 
start.
  Now, here in the House of Representatives tonight, we are going to 
adopt a conference report that is $21 billion less than what the 
President has proposed. Nobody has had the courage to stand on the 
floor of the House tonight and say why we should do less than the 
President of the United States has proposed for what we all agree 
should be our Nation's highest priority. In Tampa, Florida, my 
district, this is our highest priority, and people I represent want us 
to pay down the debt and see a fair tax cut that benefits all 
Americans, but they want us to do something about education.
  We ought to have the courage to stand up to where the President has 
started the debate in terms of leaving no child behind. Instead, this 
House is breaking from the President, is repudiating this position, is 
funding education at $21 billion less than what the President has 
proposed. How can we go forward debating the Elementary and Secondary 
Authorization Act we were supposed to take up last week, and we are 
putting all of the money into a tax cut instead.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting all year to get details 
of a proposed budget, and we have been forced to vote on crucial issues 
such as a tax cut without seeing the budget. Now we are being forced to 
vote on a budget on which we have had no input and only have gotten 
access to because of human error. This type of process is unfair and 
extremely heavy-handed.
  President Bush promised the American people he would be the education 
President. He campaigned on a slogan of, ``Leave no child behind.'' 
When he gave his State of the Union address, he stated, ``Education is 
my top priority, and by supporting this budget you will make it yours 
as well.''
  Yet this budget has no substantial new funding for education. The 
President's ostensible commitment to education, like his ostensible 
commitment to bipartisanship, is a hoax. He took $288 billion over the 
next 10 years out of the budget for education. This amount had 
bipartisan support in the Senate, yet the conference agreement 
eliminates 98 percent of that increased funding. This measly 2 percent 
increase amounts to a mere $13 per student per year. The balanced 
budget the Democrats offered and that Republicans unanimously rejected 
called for a $112 billion increase in education funding over 10 years. 
This funding would have provided for class size reductions, school 
renovation, teacher recruitment, increased funds for special education, 
expansion of Pell grants and additional funds for Head Start.
  Announcing support for education without providing funding to back it 
up is no more than another empty promise from a President whose legacy 
will more likely be his consistent flip-flop on crucial issues rather 
than any proposed commitment to education.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are going to hear a lot about education 
this evening. He promised, he promised. He has broken that promise in 
the way that he has put this budget together. I ask for a ``yes'' vote 
on the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) was quoted in Roll Call as saying, ``The Democrats are 
whining about the process rather than getting into debate on the 
substance.''
  I am going to talk about substance tomorrow, but let me talk about 
process today. I ask my colleagues on the majority side of the aisle, 
what do they think about 212 Americans who represent approximately 235 
million Americans, not Democrats, 235 million Americans, who had no 
opportunity to see the substance of your proposal on Thursday night?
  Cannot we cry foul over a Republican budget process that completely 
shuts out the representatives of the people, not us as individuals, but 
of the people that we represent, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, 
and, yes, those who are not aligned.
  Our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) was not allowed into the conference on this 
resolution; yet we adopt a rule that today will not debate substance 
but, by process alone, will recommit this bill to the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure I detected a few Republican tears in 
the wee hours of the morning that they could not get this through. As a 
matter of fact, I heard the distinguished gentleman from Florida 
talking about that and lamenting. After all, that is when the majority 
learned the painful truth: It would have to wait 4 days. Look who is 
crying now.
  Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle has had a weekend of bad 
press on these frankly heavy-handed budget tactics, and people are 
starting to reexamine the substance in this budget, a budget that 
provides huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and let the budget 
ax fall on education, contrary to the bipartisan agreement in the other 
body, and seniors who need prescription drugs, and our environment.
  Mr. Speaker, let us vote down this rule. Let us return this matter to 
the American people and have a full and fair debate.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just 4 days ago the lights 
went out in the House of Representatives, although many of us were here 
seeking the opportunity to have a full debate on a budget that all of 
America could support; but unfortunately, it did not happen. We waited 
and we waited, and all of a sudden pages were missing.
  I believe the real key is whether the American people will have their 
voices heard and whether or not they will know for sure that this is a 
budget that actually invades the Social Security Trust Fund and the 
Medicare Trust Fund because of the $1.3 trillion tax cut over a 10-year 
period, and 2011 will show us an invasion in Social Security and 
Medicare.

[[Page H1954]]

  Mr. Speaker, today in my district there was an Older American 
Seminar, and some of the major questions being raised was what is 
happening to Medicare and what is happening to Social Security? What is 
happening to the real drug prescription benefit that the President 
promised us almost 2 and 3 years ago? I can say there is no room at the 
inn, and there is no money in the House.
  When we speak about educating our children, $294 billion for 
education is all of a sudden missing. The President, who indicates that 
education is his chief responsibility, has money for reading and Pell 
grants, and I agree with that, but where is the money for the other 
programs that we so sorely need. Whether it is issues like Title I, 
whether it is issues for special education, whether it is school 
construction, where is the commitment for the Federal Government 
collaboration with local government dealing with health?
  The National Institutes of Health should be supported, but if you 
exclude the National Institutes of Health funding from health funding 
in the budget, you will find that that money is insufficient to take 
care of the needs, like uninsured children in America, 1 million in the 
State of Texas. We only enroll 300,000 to 400,000, so children are 
uninsured and we need the dollars to be able to assist.
  If we talk about civil rights and election reform, budgets in the 
Department of Justice have been cut and so we are not serious about 
election reform or civil rights in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, let us turn the lights on and do this in a bipartisan 
way and get a real budget and oppose the resolution that is on the 
floor.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I support sending this bill back to the Committee on the Budget. 
There is so much work the conference committee still has to do. I say 
with respect to the gentlewoman who talked about missing pages, there 
are more than just pages missing from this document. There are whole 
chapters that are missing. Just look at the President's priorities that 
are not funded or included.
  How are we going to pay for national missile defense? The President 
is talking about that. That is hundreds of billions of dollars not 
recognized in this budget document.
  How are we going to pay for his military build up that he is going to 
ask for in 2 weeks, probably $25 billion a year? How are we going to 
pay for that? It is not mentioned in this budget.
  How are we going to pay for his proposal to privatize Social 
Security? If that is implemented, there are probably $1 trillion in 
transition costs; yet this budget document is completely silent on 
those Presidential priorities.
  There is an awful lot missing in this document, Mr. Speaker. The 
problem is it cuts taxes too deeply, and it has far too little for debt 
reduction. The American people want us to pay down the debt. The 
American people I represent want debt reduction. That is a higher 
priority for them than large tax cuts, and they do not want us to take 
our budget process back to unbalanced budgets, deficit spending, and 
years and years of debt.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to return this for the missing pages, the 
missing chapters to be added. I support a ``yes'' vote on recommittal.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, the hottest play on Broadway is a play 
about a washed-up producer and his erstwhile accountant who try to sell 
a flop to widows, and instead of selling 100 percent they sell 1,000 
percent, and when it goes under, they will take the rest.
  Mr. Speaker, the hottest play in Washington apparently is the budget 
resolution that is before us today, and is going back to the Committee 
on the Budget, and will come back tomorrow, where we claim that we are 
going to have a tax cut that is contained and we are going to contain 
spending at a certain amount, as if all around the Capitol and even on 
the floor today and even over at the White House today when funding 
issues come up, they say, Do not worry, we will put more education 
money in later. Do not worry, we will put more money in for FEMA later. 
Do not worry, we will fund the NSF, the National Science Foundation, 
later. Do not worry, if my colleagues do not think the tax cut is big 
enough, we will take care of that later.
  What we have produced here is a flop where we are selling the 
American people 1,000 percent of the shares. It is a total fraud that 
is being committed through this budget. It is unrealistic, and at the 
end of the day what is going to happen is they are going to go to the 
appropriators and they are going to say, Let us waive the Budget Act 
and let us go ahead. It is not going to be 4 or 5 percent, it is going 
to be 6 percent, and what we are not going to do is have a strong 
fiscal policy for the good of the general economy, and we will purport 
a fraud on the American people in the process by eliminating and 
finally eviscerating once and for all the Budget Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is a great shame that this House and the 
Senate have decided to follow in the footsteps of Broadway as opposed 
to doing the American people's business.

                              {time}  1900

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  This budget should be sent back to the conference, and it should be 
fixed. The way it ought to be fixed is that the budget plan put forth 
by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) last month ought to 
be substituted for what will be before us tomorrow.
  In the years from the inception of the Republic to 1980, we ran up a 
public debt of about $1 trillion to fight and win World War I, World 
War II, dig our way out of the Great Depression, build the interstate 
highway system, do all the things America did in those years. In the 
years between 1980 and 1992, we more than quadrupled that debt. By the 
time 1993 rolled around, we were in excess of $5 trillion in debt.
  The major difference between the plan that will be before us tomorrow 
and the plan that should be before us tomorrow is this: at the end of 
the 10-year period, giving the most charitable interpretation to the 
majority's plan, when we compare it to the 10-year period under the 
gentleman from South Carolina's plan, our children will be 
approximately one-half trillion dollars greater in debt under the 
majority's plan than if we adopted the gentleman from South Carolina's 
plan. That is one-half trillion dollars, I think it is really closer to 
a trillion if we use honest accounting, that we are choosing to saddle 
our children with.
  When I came here in 1990, fiscal conservatives wanted to eliminate 
the deficit and pay down the debt. Well, the worm has turned and it 
appears to me that those who call themselves fiscal conservatives now 
stand up for fiscal irresponsibility.
  Send this budget back to the conference and fix it and relieve our 
children of the debt that we are imposing upon them.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons this budget ought to 
be sent back to conference. It needs a total overhaul, a complete 
rewrite. I would like to ask the gentleman from the Committee on Rules 
if there is a possibility if we send it back if you might reconsider 
concurrent receipt for veterans disability pay which was passed in the 
Senate but struck in conference. Is there any chance we can redeem 
that?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the interesting things 
that is going on here is that I am representing the Committee on Rules 
and am proud to do so and we are dealing with a rule. Other speakers 
have gotten a little off the track of the rule and are talking about 
the budget, which is the property and province of the Committee on the 
Budget and the conference committee

[[Page H1955]]

 that is discussing it. It is the Committee on Rules' desire to get 
this legislation back to that conference committee where the gentleman 
could properly address that question.
  Mr. SPRATT. I want to suggest there are many things you ought to do 
and one of my biggest concerns is the way defense has been treated in 
this budget. When it left the House, we provided $70 billion more than 
the rate of inflation and gave the chairman of the committee the 
authority, I did not agree with this, but the authority willy-nilly to 
come back and plus that up by even more. You got to conference and took 
$30 billion of that away in order to get the discretionary spending 
number down.
  Let me tell you what my big concern is. Looking at this fairly 
complicated chart here, if you come to the bottom line, it is the line, 
the amount of money that remains after all the puts and takes in the 
conference agreement have been made. There is $12 billion in 2002, 19 
in 2003, 24 in 2004; but we have read in recent weeks about the likely 
defense request that Mr. Rumsfeld is going to send once he figures out 
how to transform our military. And the numbers run 2, $300 billion, $25 
billion a year. We have factored that into this budget. That is this 
line right here, defense increase. You know it is coming. I know it is 
coming. This budget explicitly anticipates it by giving the Committee 
on the Budget chairman the authority to adjust this number, however it 
takes.
  But what you have got is a thin bottom line here that will not 
sustain the kind of increase that Mr. Rumsfeld is talking about. I 
would suggest if you are going to take it back to the conference 
committee, you might see if you can get these numbers to mesh.
  Look, for example, at the year 2003. The Rumsfeld request in that 
year, if it is $25 billion, plus let us add the previous year, would be 
about $33 billion. But what is left in the contingency reserve? Just 
$24 billion. Every year for the next 6 years, there is too little money 
left over to provide for what the likely defense increase is going to 
be. So I think this budget needs a huge rework.
  Let me mention one other thing. Buried in this budget without any 
debate in the Committee on the Budget is a provision that prohibits the 
use of advance appropriations. It so happens that there are entities 
around here that can make good use of advance appropriations. The 
United States Navy would like to have that authority so they can move 
from full funding to incremental funding. This will prohibit them from 
doing that. It was put in the budget resolution because you shut the 
doors, you shut us out, there was no constructive discussion of this. 
And certainly not of the education increase. The Senate provided a 
nearly $300 billion plus-up in education over and above inflation, a 
huge increase, as a result of three amendments on the Senate floor. A 
majority of the Senate passed the budget resolution with that increase 
included; and, bam, it went to conference, it disappeared. Not only did 
it disappear, the President requested $21.4 billion more than the rate 
of inflation for education. It is gone, too.
  This was supposed to be an education budget. The President told us 
from that podium right there a couple of months ago that education 
would be the account in his budget increased the most. You are bringing 
this budget back to vote on in the House with nothing more than 
inflation. Zero inflation. You have maintained real purchasing power.
  Recommit to the conference, you bet. But take it back to the 
conference and put it through a real conference. Put it through an 
adversarial process and bring us a budget that is worth consideration. 
This has too many missing numbers, too many unreal numbers, too many 
plugs and placeholders.
  Mr. Speaker, I include a chart pertaining to the budget conference 
for the Record.

                                           BUDGET CONFERENCE AGREEMENT THREATENS MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY
                                                     [Billions of dollars; CBO January assumptions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2008      2010      2011     2002-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Agreement:
    Baseline Unified Surplus....       281       313       359       397       433       505       573       635       710       796       889     5,610
    Social Security.............       156       171       188       201       221       238       257       276       294       312       331     2,488
    Medicare Part A.............        29        36        39        41        40        44        41        41        39        37        34       393
    Available Surplus...........        96       106       132       155       172       223       275       318       377       447       524     2,729
    Permanent Tax Cut...........         0        50        76        84        97       138       141       153       166       171       191     1,269
    Stimulus Tax Cut............        85        15         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0        15
    Medicare Rx and Home Health.         0         0         1        11        22        29        41        46        49        54        61       314
    Other Health................         0         7        12        11         2         2         2         2         2         2         2        44
    Agriculture.................         6         7         8         8         8         8         8         7         6         6         6        70
    Veterans....................         0         0         1         1         1         1         1         1         0         0         0         6
    All Other...................         2         7         4        -3        -0        -3         1         1         1         1         1        10
    Resulting New Interest......         2         7        12        19        26        36        48        62        78        95       114       498
    ``Contingency Reserve''.....         1        12        19        24        16        13        33        46        75       118       149       504
Likely Further Action:
    Average Historical            ........         2         4         5         6         6         6         6         6         7         7        55
     Emergencies................
    Defense Increase............         0        13        21        27        32        37        45        48        49        49        49       370
    AMT Fix.....................         0         1         4         7        13        21        37        43        49        55        63       293
    Tax ``Extenders''...........         0         1         2         3         3         4         4         5         5         6         7        41
    Business Tax Cuts...........         0         3         4         4         4         4         3         3         3         4         4        36
    Health Tax Cuts.............         0         0         2         4         6         6         7         7         7         7         7        53
    Retirement Tax Cuts.........         0         1         3         3         4         5         6         6         7         8         8        52
    Resulting Net Interest......         0         1         2         5         8        13        19        26        34        43        53       203
    Resulting Surplus/Deficit...         1       -11       -22       -33       -60       -82       -94       -98       -86       -61       -50      -597
Spending of Medicare Surplus....         0       -11       -22       -33       -40       -44       -41       -41       -39       -37       -34      -342
Spending of Social Security              0         0         0         0       -20       -38       -52       -58       -47       -24       -16      -255
 Surplus........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to call on all of my colleagues to vote yes on this rule 
because the effect will be to deliver last week's budget to the 
ignominious defeat and death that it so richly deserves.
  I urge a yes vote on this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am, of course, very pleased that the gentlewoman is approaching 
this in a bipartisan way and there is full agreement. This is a 
bipartisan rule. We are both encouraging support for this rule. If you 
do not like the budget, send it back to the conference committee. If 
you do like the budget, send it back to the conference committee. This 
is actually one of the easiest rules I have ever had to handle.
  I do say the gentleman from South Carolina was very instructive. I am 
going to get myself one of those charts for Rules so that I can get 
people to understand what it is we are talking about better.
  I am looking forward to the budget debate tomorrow when members from 
the Committee on the Budget will actually be at the microphones and at 
the leadership and committee tables on this side explaining the budget 
that we are proposing. Tonight we are proposing a rule because we are 
the Committee on Rules. The rule is designed to get the budget on the 
floor because that is much more interesting and more important. That is 
what we hope to accomplish. I want to thank all of those for their 
forbearance as we have gone through this procedure which is not 
something that we had anticipated when we started; but I appreciate the 
comity, good humor, and pleasant commentary and the bipartisanship.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.

[[Page H1956]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). 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. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 409, 
nays 1, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 101]

                               YEAS--409

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--1

       
     Capuano
       

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Clement
     Costello
     Cubin
     DeGette
     Dooley
     Fattah
     Frost
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jones (OH)
     LaHood
     McDermott
     Rivers
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1932

  Messrs. TANCREDO, WAMP, ENGEL, MANZULLO, LARGENT, UDALL of Colorado 
and GREEN of Texas and Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 10 H. Res. 134 I was 
absent because of mechanical problems with the aircraft I was on. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________