[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2026-H2031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H. CON. RES. 83, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE 
                      BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 136 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 136

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider 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. All points of order against the conference 
     report and against its consideration are waived. The 
     conference report shall be considered as read. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the conference 
     report to final adoption without intervening motion except 
     one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). 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), my friend 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.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us waives all points of order 
against the conference report to accompany H. Con. Res. 83, the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002 and against 
its consideration. Basically, this is the rule that gets the budget 
debate going.
  The rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as 
read and further provides one hour of debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on the Budget. This is a fair and standard rule for consideration of 
the conference report for the budget, and I hope we have the support of 
all Members.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the second time this spring I have had the 
privilege to stand before the House and address my fellow Americans on 
our country's budget. While the details may be a little different from 
the original House position, the sentiments do remain the same.
  The budget before the House today provides an historic level of tax 
cuts, while still providing Americans with needed resources and 
services. The budget blueprint before us provides more relief than the 
previous administration ever dreamed possible.
  From the beginning of his administration, President Bush has stressed 
the importance of bipartisan efforts to reach our national goals. This 
conference report illustrates how working together can benefit all 
Americans, both taxpayers and citizens who count on Federal programs. 
Included in the budget are allocations to pay back our country's debt, 
to fortify our national defense, to improve education, and strengthen 
both Social Security and Medicare. These are all critical issues. After 
all these programs have been addressed, there is still money remaining. 
These remaining funds will result in $1.35 trillion worth of tax relief 
over the next 11 years. This is real relief for all taxpayers.
  Now, I know some of my colleagues will complain that the tax cut is 
either too big or too small. We are certainly going to hear plenty of 
rhetoric and probably some class warfare language today on that 
subject. But this debate

[[Page H2027]]

is not about winning or losing, it is about treating the American 
taxpayers fairly. Some opponents of the revised budget are overlooking 
the difference between zero dollars and $1.35 trillion of relief. 
Others are saying any tax relief is unthinkable. Both views are 
radical. They are off the mark, and they are out of the mainstream.
  This budget illustrates compromise and bipartisanship, obviously 
working with the other body, to achieve carefully considered and 
prudent tax relief. I commend the conferees for their hard work and 
dedication to reaching an agreement. I am hopeful and I am confident 
that this budget does set a new tone in Washington. Instead of placing 
partisan point scoring above real overdue affordable relief, this 
budget focuses on necessary services for all Americans and tax relief 
for taxpayers. What a great idea.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the definition of ``folly'' is to repeat what has failed 
and expect it to succeed, and that is what this underlying budget 
document does.
  We have been down this road before. Twenty years ago Congress enacted 
massive tax cuts along with increased military spending. The result was 
a crippling recession and catastrophic deficits from which it took well 
over a decade to recover, and many regions of the country never really 
did. That is why I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  I oppose the hasty process the rule embraces. The resolution waives 
the rule that requires the availability of conference reports for 3 
days before their consideration. This House rule allows Members time to 
read and study the report before they cast their votes. But we will not 
be able to do that today. Since this conference report that outlines 
the Nation's budget has been available to most Members for only a few 
hours, I have grave doubts that most Members have any real knowledge 
about what it includes.
  Moreover, the leadership is developing a habit of adding and taking 
away crucial documents from the report in the wee hours. Asking for 
regular order to review what new surprises await Members is not an 
unreasonable request. In its current form, the conference report is, at 
best, misguided, and, at worst, a sham.
  The numbers do not add up. The bill will fundamentally threaten our 
Nation's Medicare and Social Security trust funds. This is not 
political hyperbole, this is grade school math.
  Over the next 10 years, the CBO-projected surplus totals $2.7 
trillion. The tax cuts and new spending expected to be included in the 
budget agreement, plus defense increases and additional tax cuts not 
included in the agreement, will well exceed this total and thus must 
raid Medicare and Social Security.
  I do not think anyone believes the much-ballyhooed $1.25 trillion tax 
cut over a 10-year period will stay anywhere near that amount. The 
additional $100 billion stimulus for the years 2001 and 2002 bring the 
10-year total for the tax cut to $1.3 trillion, and debt service on a 
tax cut of this size will cost $300 billion, bringing the overall cost 
over 10 years to $1.6 trillion.
  Moreover, as the majority is fond of reminding its major donors, this 
round of tax cuts is simply the first shot, with further tax breaks 
heading down the pike.
  The conference report retains the Senate's interest in Medicare 
prescription drugs, education, agriculture and other priorities; but 
the conference spending totals, the debt service that goes with them, 
and the true cost of the tax cut are likely to tap into the available 
Medicare surplus in at least 1 of the next 10 years.
  Of particular concern to my colleagues should be the presence of big 
ticket items not included in the budget resolution. For instance, the 
President is expected to request at least $300 billion in outlays over 
10 years for defense. Moreover, his recent proposal to begin spending 
billions for a missile defense system should sound budgetary alarms for 
everyone in this Chamber. They are not included in this budget.
  I would also remind my colleagues that the American people in poll 
after poll have remained remarkably sensible about their budget 
priorities. They want an honest, fiscally responsible budget plan that 
balances America's priorities, from tax relief for all families to 
support for our military, from education to a prescription drug benefit 
for our seniors. They want a fiscally responsible budget that will 
protect the economy by paying down the national debt, by strengthening 
Social Security and Medicare, and investing in our future; and this 
budget threatens all of those priorities.
  The vote today is the beginning of the raid on Social Security and 
Medicare and the return of big deficits as far as the eye can see, and 
I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am genuinely sorry the gentlewoman is opposed to the 
rule. We think it is an excellent and traditional rule, and do not 
think we can proceed to the budget debate without it. I hope Members 
will support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Sanibel for yielding 
me time and for the fine work he has done on this very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. As my friend has 
just said, this is the standard rule for dealing with a conference 
report; and it is deserving of the full support, I believe, of both 
sides of the aisle.
  I want to start out by congratulating our great new chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for the 
fine job that he has done in laying the groundwork for us to once again 
make history.
  Over the past 6 years, since we Republicans have been in charge, we 
have been able to make history on this whole issue of the budget. We 
have been able to pay down the national debt, we have been able to 
protect Social Security, and we have focused resources on our Nation's 
priorities.
  Once again, today, we are going to be making history, because even 
though over the last 6 years we have succeeded in doing those things 
that I have just mentioned successfully, we also have every year had a 
President's budget come to the Congress, and, frankly, every year since 
I have had the privilege of serving here over the last 2 decades, every 
President's budget which has arrived here has been designated with that 
moniker ``dead on arrival.'' The acronym DOA has been placed over every 
President's budget.
  Yet today we are going to make history for the first time in at least 
2 decades and possibly since passage of the 1974 Budget Impoundment 
Act, we are going to actually pass the President's budget. It is the 
right thing to do, and that is the reason that we are going to be doing 
it.
  It is the right thing to do, because this budget is fair, it is 
balanced, and, as with these past budgets we have reported out of here 
since we have been in the majority, it successfully focuses on our 
Nation's priorities.
  It is true that this budget conference report does not have a tax cut 
which is as large as the one that was reported out of the House, but it 
still is a very important and historic move that we have made to bring 
about the kind of reduction in the tax burden on working Americans that 
we are going to with the $1.35 trillion level. This budget also pays 
down $2.3 trillion in national debt, it does provide tax relief for 
every American who pays taxes, and it does something that really was 
the highest priority in this past Presidential campaign, focuses on 
this very important issue of education.
  We all know that if the young people who are being educated today in 
this country are going to be able to be competitive as we look at this 
global economy, we must do everything we can to improve the quality of 
education. We want decision-making to be handled at

[[Page H2028]]

the local level, and we want teachers to be empowered to make 
decisions. That is exactly what this measure will do, and we are going 
to be, in the not too distant future, considering a very important 
education bill that I think will also do that.
  Then going from education to an issue that is near and dear to 
everyone, especially as we look at baby-boomers who are aging, and that 
is Social Security, I am very, very pleased that this budget, which has 
been carefully crafted, does protect Social Security. It ensures that 
we are not going to be going in and spending Social Security dollars 
for a wide rage of other issues, which, frankly, was done for years up 
until we won the majority again.
  We are going to be doing everything that we can, as well as focusing 
on retirement, to make sure that the number one issue that is focused 
on in the U.S. Constitution as far as our responsibility here, that 
being national security, is addressed.

                              {time}  1045

  Those 15 words in the middle of the preamble of the Constitution that 
provide for the common defense are the words which really state clearly 
that all of these other issues that we address can be handled at other 
levels of government, but our national security is the one issue that 
must be addressed here at the Federal level; and the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle) in this budget has very effectively focused on the 
issue of our national security.
  So I am very, very proud of the work that has been done by the 
Committee on the Budget. We are very proud of the Committee on Rules to 
have been able to move this forward. Obviously, we have run into a 
challenge in the past week, but today we are finally going to pass the 
President's budget. It is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues 
to support both the rule and the budget itself.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have been congratulating 
themselves for changing the tone here in Washington, D.C.; and just a 
few weeks ago, the Senate reached a bipartisan agreement on increasing 
funding for education. But where in this Republican budget are the 
additional funds that America needs for special education? Gone. What 
about the money we need for early childhood education? Gone. What about 
the funds for a better after-school program for our children so that 
they have a safe haven when the school day is over? Gone. What about 
the money so kids have smaller class sizes so that there is a better 
ratio and more discipline and more attention for our children? Gone. 
What about the money to improve school safety? It is not there either. 
The entire bipartisan agreement on education: gone, vanished, as if it 
was not worth the paper it was written on when it was negotiated. In 
fact, this budget cuts education $21 billion below the President's 
request, the President of their own party.
  Now, let me ask my colleagues, what is bipartisan about that?
  The Republicans are not presenting us with a budget; they are 
conducting an elaborate shell game, a shell game where working families 
lose on every score. Where is their commitment to affordable 
prescription medicine? Where is their commitment to quality health 
care? Where is their commitment to the environment? Do not look for it 
in this budget. It is not in the budget; it is not in the two lost 
pages that they could not find last week. It is nowhere.
  While this administration refuses to cut the amount of arsenic in 
Michigan's drinking water, they are happier to cut funding for the 
Environmental Protection Agency. While the Republicans hold back-room 
meetings with oil industry to map out their energy policy, they are 
gutting Federal support for conservation and renewable resources. Last 
year, the Republicans said they had a lot of compassion, and they 
might; but this budget proves it is not for America's working families. 
They cut education and the environment to pay for huge tax breaks for 
the wealthiest Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know what? They will rob the Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds as well. They will rob the Medicare 
and Social Security trust funds to put this together. We are 7 years 
from the retirement of the baby boomers; yet we are squandering every 
penny of the surplus that could be used to strengthen our retirement 
security. And even worse, they are using Social Security and Medicare 
as a piggy-back to fund their special-interest tax breaks.
  And the surplus, heavens, we should talk about the surplus. There is 
no surplus. The budget projections are from last year, before the 
economy slowed. We are betting the farm on wild projections that cannot 
possibly be accurate. A new bipartisan tone in Washington, Mr. Speaker? 
No way. Not with this budget, not with the way we were treated in 
putting it together, not with excluding us from this budget.
  Let us reject the cuts in education. Let us reject the cuts in the 
environment. Let us sit down and write a budget that will take care of 
our children first and the special interests last.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the gentleman's comments on 
the budget, I hope we will have his support on the rule so that we can 
get to the debate on the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, this is a very fair and 
standard rule that is going to allow us to have a substantive debate on 
the budget, and I certainly hope all of my colleagues will vote ``yes'' 
to pass this rule, because then we can get on to the substance of the 
budget itself, and it is a terrific budget that we have before us 
today.
  First of all, as all of my colleagues in this Chamber know, Mr. 
Speaker, we have walled off the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. 
We are devoting over $2 trillion in the next 10 years to paying off all 
of the available national debt. We have responsible restraints on the 
growth of Federal spending and, at the same time increasing, where it 
is appropriate, such as in health care research and the national 
defense, which badly needs an increase. Best of all, from my point of 
view, this budget provides the framework for providing meaningful tax 
relief from the record high taxes that are being carried by the 
American people.
  Frankly, it is modest tax relief. Certainly, if we look at it 
historically, certainly, if we put this in the context of the size of 
our economy, this is modest tax relief; but it is very important in 
that it is tax relief for all taxpayers. It is still the most sweeping 
tax relief of a generation.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this tax relief is about freedom. It is about 
the question of who is going to get to decide how to spend that 
marginal dollar they earn, the American people who earn it, or 
politicians in Washington who would like to hoard that surplus tax 
money and spend it themselves. I am going to be voting for the American 
people on this one.
  It is also about economic growth because when we lower marginal tax 
rates, when we eliminate the death tax, hopefully lower capital gains 
rate and eliminate a number of other tax reductions, we will take an 
enormous step forward in providing long-term prosperity for our Nation. 
Every single time in American history that we have had sweeping tax 
reduction, we have seen a corresponding acceleration in economic growth 
and activity. The economy accelerates, take-home wages go up, 
productivity rises, living standards rise.
  There is no coincidence; there is no mystery as to why this happens. 
It is simple. When we increase the rewards of working and saving and 
investing, we increase the incentives to work and save and invest, and 
when we increase the incentives, we get more work in savings and 
investment. That is why this tax relief will help to spur economic 
growth, that is why it is so good for the American people, and that is 
why we should adopt the rule and the budget.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost).
  Mr. FROST. Today, Mr. Speaker, the budgets of the President and the 
Republican Congress are perpetuating a fraud on the American people, 
one that threatens the economy and Medicare and Social Security, and 
one that sacrifices priorities like education, prescription drugs, and 
paying down the debt.

[[Page H2029]]

  Republicans are spinning the ridiculous notion that this budget 
conference report represents some sort of compromise. What kind of 
compromise, Mr. Speaker, guts education like this, sacrificing 
priorities like smaller classes and more qualified teachers? This so-
called compromise takes a giant step backward in education, eliminating 
the $294 billion the Senate added to the House bill, and even cutting 
education below what the President requested.
  What kind of compromise guts conservation and renewable energy 
programs at a time when the American people are crying out for relief 
from skyrocketing gas prices and an electricity crisis across the West? 
What kind of compromise, Mr. Speaker, ignores vital defense needs? What 
kind of compromise, Mr. Speaker, ignores skyrocketing prescription 
prices and raids the Social Security and Medicare trust funds?
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. Let us understand what is 
happening here. This is not a real document. Later in the year the 
Republicans will be back before this House seeking greater tax cuts, 
more money for defense, and more money for education; and when they do 
that, as they inevitably will, that money will come from the Social 
Security Trust Fund and the Medicare Trust Fund, because there is no 
other place to get it.
  This is a fraudulent document set up to fail. The Republicans know 
it, and they are doing a disservice to the American public.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Rules and a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding me this time. I would inquire if the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, 
would engage in a colloquy with me.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this 
opportunity as chairman of the Nuclear Cleanup Caucus to thank the 
gentleman from Iowa for working with me to increase the funding for the 
Department of Energy's Environmental Management Account. As the 
gentleman is aware, the administration's budget request falls well 
short of the necessary funding to meet the needs throughout the entire 
DOE complex.
  Specifically, at the Hanford Reservation in my district, the 
administration's budget request will jeopardize momentum at the 
Richland Operations Office and delay construction of the waste 
treatment plant at the Office of River Protection.
  Recognizing this shortfall, is it true that the budget resolution 
recognizes the urgent need for up to a $1 billion increase for the EM 
account and the cleanup at these former defense nuclear sites for the 
government to meet its legal, contractual, and moral responsibilities?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. I would first like 
to commend the gentleman for his hard work on this issue. This is a 
tough issue, and this has been a tough issue for the gentleman and a 
number of other Members; and I appreciate his leadership in ensuring 
that this increase was included in the conference report.
  As the gentleman stated, the resolution provides specific language 
highlighting the recognition by Congress that up to an additional $1 
billion is necessary next year, and I look forward to working with the 
gentleman to ensure that this increase is included in any final 
appropriations bill that moves this year.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very 
much for his leadership not only on this; but I would like to also add 
my congratulations to the gentleman, because this is his first budget. 
I think the budget that we will be voting on here soon is an excellent 
budget. It sets a blueprint really for well into the next century. We 
have heard that over and over again. But I think the gentleman has done 
an excellent job.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule and also 
the underlying legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are here for the charade budget number 
two. The question is, why? Because it has been run through the House so 
rapidly that they lost two pages, and they are trying to get it past 
the American people as quickly as possible.
  The view is this was constructed because they believe that all of the 
American people are yokels that can be fooled by an old game they play 
in the county fairs.
  Now, this shell that we have here represents the defense budget, the 
tax cut, and the rest of the budget. And we have under this pea, we 
have the surplus from Social Security and Medicare. And what they are 
doing is moving it around so fast that they lost two pages.
  Now, they have gone back, and they are going to start moving these 
shells around. We heard the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) talk 
about the shell game. That is the shell game we are talking about. They 
think the American people do not understand that we cannot have an 
enormous tax cut, protect Social Security and Medicare, and have a big 
defense budget, and everything else they want in the budget. They 
cannot do it, unless they move these shells so quickly that people do 
not recognize this.
  Now, how do they do that? First they come out here and say, we put 
all of the money for Social Security in a lock box, so that is 
protected. Right? And then they come out and say, and now we have 
passed a big tax cut. I ask my colleagues, how many Americans will 
actually know if they got a tax cut? They have been told it here in the 
well 10,000, 100,000 times, or I do not know how many times, by people 
who say, every American is going to get a tax cut. But if they move 
that shell around quick enough, no one will ever know if they got one 
or not. Then, when it comes to their schools and there is no money, and 
there is no money for the environment, and they have made no provision 
whatsoever for energy prices going on, in this budget, there is no 
recognition of $3-a-gallon gas.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to vote against this rule, go back 
and do an orderly process on a budget resolution that has hearings and 
actually has a vote in the House and in the Senate on a real bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), a distinguished member of the 
committee.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my 
friend who spoke last because he said how many Americans know they got 
a tax cut? The answer is zero, because we have never given them a tax 
cut. Last year, we came before this body and the leadership who was 
speaking today talked about our $373 billion tax proposal, and what did 
our colleagues on the other side say? It is a risky tax scheme. We 
cannot afford it. It will hurt Social Security, it will destroy 
Medicare, it will put homeless on the street.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. Speaker, it does not matter what we do. My colleagues do not like 
it. The problem is, my colleagues say we cut education; the budget 
allows for an 11\1/2\ percent increase in education. That is not 
rhetoric. That is a fact. Read the budget.
  When my colleagues talk about people needing to pay energy bills, we 
have people out there who cannot afford the energy bills. Why? Because 
we confiscate their money through taxation.
  What is wrong with changing a punitive Tax Code and letting the 
American people keep more of their hard-earned money? This budget sets 
aside 100 percent, 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund over 
10 years. It is not spent. All of the rhetoric in the world will not 
spend that money.
  It says we are going to pay off all of the available debt, $2.4 
trillion. That is all we can pay off because that is all that is due. 
The problem is when we talk about educating children, what about 
allowing people to keep their own money so they can help educate their 
own children? It is ridiculous.

[[Page H2030]]

  Our Tax Code builds a wall between people who work for a living and 
success. And my colleagues say we are just benefiting the rich.
  Let me tell my colleagues, people work, people go to school to become 
educated, to better themselves in life; what we have is a situation 
when people move up the ladder, we confiscate the money through 
taxation.
  If my colleagues want to help people, want to help them make their 
house payment, want to help them make their car payment, want to help 
them feed their families, try a noble idea, let them keep more of their 
hard-earned money.
  I believe the American people know where their money should be spent, 
but my good friends on the other side of the aisle believe that they 
know where the money should be spent. There is no limit to how large 
the government should grow from my colleagues' perspective.
  This is a reasonable rule, a reasonable budget, and I ask for an aye 
vote.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and I oppose the budget. 
The reason I oppose this budget is it is more complicated than the 2 
pages that were missing from this budget, it is the lack of commitment 
of education that is missing in the 150 pages that remain in this 
budget.
  President Bush stood right here, the Republican President, in this 
House 2\1/2\ months ago, and he said to the Nation and to the 
Republican and Democratic parties, I want to spend $21 billion more on 
education, for an 11 percent increase. That commitment is gone from 
this budget.
  The House of Representatives is right now working on a bipartisan 
bill called the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. We have proposed doubling of Title I for the poorest 
kids in this country. The President wants to test them. We need to 
remediate and help them with these tests.
  That commitment is gone in this budget. The United States Senate has 
proposed helping our local communities with one of the biggest burdens 
and responsibilities, helping our children with disabilities; one of 
the biggest tax cuts we can give our schools and the American people. 
That commitment is missing from this budget.
  As America says, as Americans say, we need to do more in innovative 
new ways to reform with vision our education system. This budget does 
less. I would hope that we would come back and redo our commitment to 
education for our children and for new ideas.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a distinguished colleague and a member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support not only the rule, but 
ultimately to support this budget. I do this on behalf of the thousands 
of taxpayers that live in my district.
  In Florida, where I live, yesterday we celebrated what we call Tax 
Freedom Day; that is the day that people can stop working just to pay 
their taxes and begin to start working to actually do some things they 
want to do. In other words, in Florida, and it is different in other 
States, but in Florida, in January and February and in March and in 
April and part of May, people, the average taxpayer, has been working 
just to make enough money to pay his or her taxes. So yesterday was Tax 
Freedom Day.
  Today in Florida, people can begin to work to do the things they need 
to do, like buy new clothes for the kids, maybe buy a new washing 
machine, maybe pay college tuition for their son or daughter, pay that 
mortgage down a little bit and pay off some of those credit card bills. 
And so I think it is very fitting on this day, as we begin in Florida 
to be able to work for ourselves, that we pass this budget resolution 
which is going to let all Americans keep more of what they earn.
  Everybody that pays taxes is going to see their tax burden lessened, 
and that is awfully important. But it does other things as well, 
because some people say we ought to pay down the national debt. This 
budget does that. In fact, it pays down virtually all the redeemable 
debt that we can pay down over the next 10 years, over $2 trillion.
  It funds education, which is important. It begins to rebuild our 
military, which has been hollowed out over these last 8 years. We are 
going to begin to make America strong again. And, most important, we 
are going to make sure that Social Security and Medicare are there. 
They are lockboxed. They are set aside. We are not going to touch those 
dollars. It is a great budget, Mr. Speaker, and I urge its adoption.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, do the math. This Congress says we will 
have a surplus of nearly $5 trillion over the next 10 years. But we 
have a budget that is before us, and I am opposed to the flawed rule, 
as well as the flawed conference report that has been brought to us.
  It does not even allow us the customary 3 days to look over the 
numbers. It is a nearly $2 trillion budget. We have heard about the 
surpluses. This budget has nothing in it for school safety; no more 
dollars in it to reduce class size; no dollars for special education; 
no new dollars. If there is a surplus, why not? No new dollars for 
school construction. Why not?
  This budget cuts community development block grants that would help 
communities all over America. Why? This budget cuts funding for public 
housing and drug programs for public housing. There is a surplus; why 
no money?
  This budget cuts nearly a million dollars, excuse me, that is a 
billion dollars, to our veterans who have served this country. There is 
a surplus. Why no money in these programs?
  This budget is nearly $2 trillion. Our country is enjoying the 
surplus that we built over the last 8 years. Do we not want some of our 
dollars into education and those categories I mentioned? Do we not want 
some of those dollars back into our communities to help our community 
development?
  This budget is a charade. The process was a charade. With the popular 
vote in America, Democrats got more than the other side. They did not 
let our Democratic leader into the budget negotiations. Come on, 
America, let us hear it from you.
  It is a flawed rule, it is a flawed budget, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote no.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Putnam), a distinguished colleague and a member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
this, and I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), our great 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member, for their hard work on this 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the principle-based budget 
that we will take up this afternoon after we have passed this rule, the 
principle that you do not tax people at the same rate as a portion of 
the economy in peacetime as we did in 1944; the principle that 
taxpayers deserve to have hard-earned relief delivered back to them in 
the form of tax cuts; that marriage and death should not be taxable 
events; the principle that we will not burden our children and 
grandchildren; that we will not burden young workers and young families 
with trillions of dollars in debt; and that we will do everything we 
can to pay off all of the redeemable debt to the tune of $2.4 trillion 
over the next 10 years; the principle that we will make our soldiers 
and sailors strong again to give them the training and support and 
respect that they deserve, and that this Congress will stand behind 
them and give them the deserved funding that they have earned; that 
veterans who have paid so much, who have given so much, who have 
sacrificed so much, will receive the benefits that they have earned, 
and deserve, to the tune of $7 billion in increases over the next 
decade; that senior citizens who have worked hard all of their life and 
paid into Social Security and Medicare deserve to be safe and secure 
and independent and to be cared for and have the government keep its 
promise and

[[Page H2031]]

Congress keep its promise by locking those surpluses away, and making 
sure that those programs are relevant to today by providing the 
prescription drug benefit.
  Mr. Speaker, we take care of our children to the tune of an 11\1/2\ 
percent increase. Now, much has been made about this. But back home in 
central Florida, an 11\1/2\ percent increase, a double-digit increase 
in tens of thousands of dollars is still real money.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, there is some good news and some bad news in 
this budget process. The good news is our Republican colleagues, 
indeed, did find the missing 2 pages, and that is good news. The bad 
news is that it allowed us the time and the American people to the time 
to find out the dollar figure that our Republican friends across the 
aisle cut out of the education budget that was put in by the Senate.
  We have had the time and America has had the time to figure out what 
that number was, and that number is minus $294 billion, $294 billion 
for smaller classes that America wants, $294 billion for more teachers 
that America wants, $294 billion for better quality in our education 
that America wants.
  The U.S. Senate put that money in for better schools. The Republican 
Party took it out. The President just recently asked an important 
question. He asked, ``Is our children learning?'' In this budget, they 
is not.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the City of Cleveland 
issued a $338 million bond for Cleveland school children; $500 million 
matched by the State of Ohio. We talked about what about the children? 
We passed it 60 to 40, by the way.
  Our theme was, what about the children? Remember when we were 
children; if it was not for those who loved us and those who cared 
enough to show us, where would we be today? With this budget, what 
about the children? Elementary and secondary education reauthorization, 
what about the children? School construction, what about the children? 
Smaller classes, more teachers, what about the children? Low-income 
programs, temporary assistance to needed families, what about the 
children? Social service block grant, what about the children? Section 
8 vouchers, what about the children? Drug elimination programs, what 
about the children?
  Remember when we were children; if it was not for those who loved us 
and those who cared enough to show us, where would we be today?

                          ____________________