[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?
____________________