[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 68 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E844-E845]
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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. DENNIS MOORE

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, May 9, 2001

  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference 
report on H. Con. Res. 83, the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2002.
  This conference agreement was developed in a manner which abused the 
congressional budget process. Consider the following:
  The debate in the House on the tax cut contained in this budget 
resolution has already taken place. We were forced to vote on these 
cuts--which far exceed the levels contained in this conference 
agreement--months before we will understand the full impact of what we 
were considering.
  The House was later forced to consider its version of the budget 
resolution prior to receiving the President's budget.
  The Senate Budget Committee was never afforded the opportunity to 
consider this bill; rather the committee of jurisdiction was 
circumvented using a questionable procedure.
  Minority House and Senate Members were explicitly noticed that they 
would not be included in negotiations between the two chambers to work 
out differences between the competing versions of the budget.
  Finally, in the most recent example of an abuse of power, the House 
leadership filed late last week a resolution only moments before it was 
to be adopted in the dead-of-the night, without a Congressional Budget 
Office analysis or a Joint Tax Committee scoring of the tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, in its haste to rush through a conference report before 
anyone had a chance to look at the details, two pages were lost that 
happened to contain language crucial to the compromise that persuaded 
moderates to agree to this budget. As a result, members, including the 
minority,
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement calls for $661.3 billion in 
discretionary spending for fiscal year 2002. Instead of making 
recommendations for the level of funding for our national priorities, 
however, the conference agreement lists CBO baseline levels, and then 
uses a plug number of $6 billion in a catchall function known as 
``allowances'' to make the numbers for 2002 add up.
  These unrealistic discretionary spending levels will result in a 
year-end conflict over funding levels for appropriations bills, much 
like those we have seen in years past. Undoubtedly, we will soon be 
faced with a chaotic budget process that drags on into the fall that 
produces much higher spending than would have been necessary had we 
reached agreement on realistic spending levels within the context of 
the budget resolution.
  Moreover, if one takes these spending numbers at face value, then 
this majority has broken its promise to increase funding for education 
and the critical research needs at the National Institutes of Health 
(NIH). The majority will argue that the function numbers in the 
conference agreement do not represent intended policy and that 
increases for education and NIH can be provided by the Appropriations 
Committee.
  But if appropriators can change the recommended levels, what purpose 
does this budget resolution serve? The troubling conclusion is that 
either these increases will come at the expense of other programs or we 
will once again far exceed the spending targets outlined in this 
resolution.
  More troubling than the unrealistic spending levels are the items 
missing from this budget. Last week, the President established a 
Commission on Social Security reform and announced his commitment to 
pursuing a national missile defense system. Nobody knows how much 
either of these broad initiatives will cost and the budget fails to 
account for either of these items.
  Also conspicuously missing from this conference report are funds for 
debt reduction. This budget commits funds dedicated to the Medicare and 
Social Security Trust Funds to debt reduction without devoting a single 
dollar of our projected on-budget surpluses towards paying down our 
national debt. This is like a family using one credit card to pay off 
another and then claiming that their debt was paid. The American people 
will not be deceived by this manipulation.
  Finally, there is one more missing page that explains how all of our 
other priorities, including education, emergencies, defense increases 
and future tax cuts, will fit into the so-called contingency fund. 
Indeed, the overall tax and spending totals in this budget will 
virtually eliminate the non-Social Security, non-Medicare budget 
surplus. Any additional expenditures as expected in defense; any 
downward revisions of the surplus projections that may occur due to our 
slowing economy, increased unemployment, decreased labor productivity, 
and lower-than expected revenue collections; or, any additional tax 
cuts above and beyond those contained in this so-called agreement--and 
I have reason to believe that these will occur since the Secretary of 
the Treasury testified last week that he would be willing to consider 
tax breaks that go beyond the budget resolution on a case-by-case 
basis--will return this nation back to the era of deficits, tapping our 
Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.
  Mr. Speaker, on May 1, 2001, I sent the Chairman of the Budget 
Committee a letter indicating I could support the proposed budget 
resolution provided that the resolution cut taxes no more than $1.25 
trillion, set realistic spending levels, and maintained a commitment to 
debt reduction by ensuring that any

[[Page E845]]

remaining on-budget surpluses be devoted to debt reduction. These 
conditions were not only not met, but there was not even an opportunity 
to discuss them.
  Because of these concerns about process, unrealistic spending levels, 
the failure to reduce our national debt and the very real threat this 
budget poses to our Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, I will 
vote against this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.

                          ____________________