[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 147 (Thursday, November 14, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H8785-H8794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  REDUCING PREEXISTING PAYGO BALANCES

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 602, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 5708) to reduce preexisting PAYGO balances, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 5708 is as follows:

                               H.R. 5708

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
       Section 1. Reduction of Preexisting PAYGO Balances.
       Upon the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget shall reduce any balances of direct 
     spending and receipts legislation for all fiscal years under 
     section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 to zero.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 602, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in favor of the bill before us, H.R. 5708. It is a bill that 
would prevent the automatic spending cuts in Medicare and other 
entitlements.
  Under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, entitlement and tax 
legislation must be offset on a year-by-year basis. We do this so that 
it will not increase the deficit or reduce the surplus.NOTICE

If the 107th Congress, 2d Session, adjourns sine die on or before 
November 22, 2002, a final issue of the Congressional Record for 
the 107th Congress, 2d Session, will be published on Monday, 
December 16, 2002, in order to permit Members to revise and extend 
their remarks.
All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and 
delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of 
Debates (Room HT-60 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through 
Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through 
Friday, December 13. The final issue will be dated Monday, December 
16, 2002, and will be delivered on Tuesday, December 17, 2002.
None of the material printed in the final issue of the 
Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any 
event that occurred after the sine die date.
Senators' statements should also be submitted electronically, 
either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to 
the Official Reporters of Debates at ``[email protected]''.
Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be 
submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed 
statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the 
Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerkhouse.house.gov. The 
Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted 
electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the 
hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the 
Official Reporters in Room 
HT-60.
Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material 
submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by 
contacting the Congressional Printing Management Division, at the 
Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily.
By order of the Joint Committee on Printing.
                                                                
MARK DAYTON, Chairman.

[[Page H8786]]

  

If such legislation is not offset, then automatic spending cuts, often 
called a sequester, are triggered in selected entitlement programs, 
including Medicare. This so-called pay-as-you-go rule, or what we refer 
to around here oftentimes as PAYGO, expired at the end of September; 
but the Office of Management and Budget is still required to trigger a 
sequester for previously enacted legislation.
  On various occasions during which the Federal Government was running 
large surpluses, this Congress saw fit to depart from the PAYGO rule 
for selected measures. This was the case with the tax bill enacted last 
year. Similarly this year on both sides of the aisle, we have promoted 
initiatives to provide prescription drug benefit coverage under 
Medicare, and we also did so without offsetting entitlement cuts or tax 
increases.
  But as we know, last year's recession and the shock of the terrorist 
attacks are still affecting our economy and have changed the budget 
outlook considerably. As a result, these and other such measures could 
trigger what we refer to as a PAYGO sequester several weeks after the 
Congress adjourns. Should we fail to enact this bill, the Office of 
Management and Budget has estimated that Medicare and other 
entitlements should be reduced by almost $125 billion in fiscal year 
2003. Given various rules that exempt certain programs from 
sequestration, or that limit the size of any sequester, the maximum 
sequester would still be substantial, about $31 billion, all of which 
would have to be absorbed in 1 year.
  The magnitude of these cuts would be so great as to cause a 4 percent 
reduction in certain Medicare payments and cuts ranging in the billions 
in such key programs as crop insurance, the Department of Defense 
health fund, payments to States for child support enforcement, veterans 
education and readjustment, and the September 11 victims compensation 
fund. With the other body unable to pass even a budget this year, we 
were obviously unable to reach an agreement on legislation to extend 
PAYGO and other budget rules. It is my hope that this can be done next 
year as part of a normal budget process.
  I would close by reminding our Members and colleagues that the PAYGO 
rule contributed to the taming of deficits over the past 7 years, and 
it is my hope that a successor to PAYGO can be developed and coupled 
with caps on distressary appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, in short, what this bill does is prevents automatic 
spending cuts in Medicare and other entitlements. As we know in years 
past, particularly in years of surplus while the PAYGO rule was used, 
it was not a perfect rule because it suggested that tax cuts and 
entitlement reforms go on what we call the PAYGO scorecard. Every year 
in a very routinized way, the last bill has taken care of this concern 
in years of surplus. That would have been the intention this year. 
However, this controversy looms as a result of the fact that we have 
had this triple budget threat of a downturn in the economy, the 
terrorist attacks, and the war on terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe all of us want to avoid Draconian cuts to 
Medicare and to other entitlements or to prevent tax increases in order 
to pay for this during a time of recession. What we need is a plan, and 
we have a plan. The House passed a plan. The President has endorsed 
that plan. If we stick to that plan, we can get back to surpluses, we 
can get back to fiscal discipline. But in the meantime, let us take 
this ministerial opportunity to take care of this unfortunate situation 
so that we can avoid something automatic happening while Congress is 
not in session.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, a year ago the Blue Dogs warned about the 
danger of making long-term commitments for tax cuts or new spending 
programs. We were concerned that the projections were based on 
unrealistic assumptions and that the projected surpluses could vanish 
as quickly as they materialized. We were concerned that the large tax 
cuts and increased spending would drive up the deficit and the national 
debt. Our warnings were ignored, and now we are told we will be 
borrowing virtually all of our Social Security surplus for the next 
decade and beyond.
  After passing legislation that would rack up an additional debt of 
$127 billion next year alone, Congress is considering legislation that 
would wipe the slate clean to remove all those costs from the ledger. 
The bill before us wipes the slate clean not just for this year and 
next year but for each of the next 5 years, allowing us to avoid 
responsibility for legislation adding over $550 billion in new national 
debt.
  I do not want to cut Medicare or veterans benefits, farm assistance, 
or child support enforcement. However, we object strongly to clearing 
the scorecard for the next 5 years, which allows Congress and the 
President to ignore the impact of legislation that will increase the 
deficit for the next 5 years without working to plan to stem the tide 
of red ink.
  I agree with what the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) said a moment 
ago. This is not the time to be talking about spending cuts or tax 
increases. I agree. But why not in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008? 
Why do we feel compelled tonight to say we are going to wipe the slate 
clean for the next 5 years when we have constantly and the motion to 
recommit tonight will allow us to do just that? The motion that the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) will offer will say we do not object 
to wiping the scorecard clean for 2002 and 2003. Obviously 9/11/01 has 
made a big change in the economics of this country. But let us sit down 
in the next Congress and let us work out the details of how we are in 
fact going to deal with these exploding deficits. Let us not exempt new 
tax cuts or new spending increases from the hard decisions that this 
body should be trying to make in order to bring our budget back under 
control. That is what we object to. I do not understand the rationale 
of why we need to do this for 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. And I 
would be glad to yield to the chairman if he could answer that question 
because he made a very compelling argument a moment ago of why we 
should not do it now.
  I do not want to cut Medicare right now. In fact, we need to do just 
the opposite. We do have to recognize the rationale of the situation we 
are in today, but why do we want to do it for these outyears? I do not 
understand that.
  Just yesterday Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan reiterated the 
importance of restoring the budget enforcement rules for the Federal 
budget. We should not ignore the chairman's request of this body. 
``It's important for Congress and the administration to have a long-
term budget structure which we continuously update and evaluate so that 
we have a mechanism to make judgments . . . relative priorities within 
the overall budget choice process or with respect to the economy . . . 
we need to get the process back to where it was. We need to reestablish 
the basic caps on discretionary spending, on PAYGO, introduce new 
things like triggers or other things which give us a vehicle to 
function with.''
  I believe the chairman has agreed with that in the past. I certainly 
do. Earlier this year Chairman Greenspan told the Committee on the 
Budget that failing to preserve budget enforcement rules would be a 
grave mistake. Tonight we are about to do just that. We are about to 
make a grave mistake saying we are going to waive all PAYGO rules, all 
discretionary caps, everything for the next 8 years in order to do 
what? Accomplish somebody's political agenda? Or are we going to 
seriously roll up our sleeves in the next Congress and deal with it?
  Vote for the motion to recommit. Let us wipe the PAYGO slate clean 
for 2002 and 2003. Wipe it clean. We all will agree, but do not do it 
for 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. That will not be a fiscally 
responsible thing for this House to do.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while I certainly enjoy the philosophical discussion of 
budget process and budget enforcement with maybe the best of them, the 
fact of the matter is that this is a real vote and

[[Page H8787]]

you are either going to vote yes to prevent automatic sequestration of 
Medicare or you are not. It is either a vote to allow OMB, or not even 
allow, to force OMB for automatic sequestration of Medicare or you are 
not. So a vote in favor of this bill prevents Medicare cuts. A vote 
against this bill or a vote even for that matter for the motion to 
recommit allows Medicare cuts, and it is that simple.
  So we will have a lot of time to talk about budget process for many 
years, weeks, months to come, but the fact of the matter is that this 
is a real bill. It has real consequences, and therefore it should be 
passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the 
comments just made by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. It 
is correct to say that probably every Member of this body is opposed to 
cutting Medicare spending to fund the effects of the tax cut whose size 
in retrospect was way too large given the condition of the economy and 
the cost to our country of maintaining security at home and abroad, but 
there is another point involved here in the motion to recommit, and 
this is what we need to debate.
  We are not cutting taxes tonight or spending money. We are engaged in 
accounting. We just spent a year preaching to corporate America about 
the need to be open and honest to shareholders and investors and to the 
public about admitting when they were in deficit and doing the math 
correctly, and here we are tonight in direct defiance of that principle 
because what we are voting upon is whether we are going to be honest 
first with ourselves and then with the American people that we are in 
deficit spending and in balance only because we are relying upon the 
Social Security Trust Fund. Every Member of Congress who went home the 
last campaign campaigned upon fiscal responsibility, the virtues of 
balancing the budget and paying down the debt, and there are many 
Democrats and some Republicans that increasingly will argue for that. 
It has had benefits in terms of interest rates. It has benefits in 
terms of preparing Social Security and Medicare for the retirement of 
the baby boomers. One of the key principles that brought Democrats and 
Republicans together to balance the budget was the principle of pay as 
you go because pay as you go has meant, until today after this vote, 
that if you want to increase spending, Medicare or other discretionary 
spending under formulas or programs, or if you wanted to increase 
taxes, you had to pay as you go. You had to consider the impact that 
would have on the balanced budget, growing the deficit.
  Tonight we are throwing those rules out. We are saying for the next 5 
years, whether it is increased spending or additional tax cuts, we do 
not care what impact it has on the size of the deficit. We are going to 
dig deeper.
  Let us think back to the things we said to corporate America and what 
we promised the people we represent. Let us have a direct, open, and 
honest debate tonight. Let us admit to ourselves we made a mistake in 
terms of the size of the tax cut. We need to come straight with the 
American public. It starts by coming straight with ourselves. Let us 
reinstate PAYGO starting the year after this. Let us vote for the 
motion to recommit because what the motion to recommit says, and my 
colleagues are going to hear this over and over again, is let us 
commit, let us make the President commit to a plan to get back to a 
balanced budget, to stop relying upon the Social Security Trust Fund. 
The motion to recommit says it is not going to happen tomorrow. We have 
got security problems we need to deal with. We have got funding at home 
we need to deal with, but we need to have a plan, and we need to be 
honest with the folks at home just as we said to corporations across 
America, we have got a problem, we have got a growing deficit and we 
are going in the right direction and not the wrong direction. It starts 
by reinstating the PAYGO principle. I would ask my colleagues, 
Democrats and Republicans, that care about fiscal responsibility and 
the growing budget deficit to vote for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that I want to caution my friends on the 
Democratic side do not get excited. You guys understand this President 
is in total control of this country, and he lied to us about taxes and 
now it is coming home to roost. Do not get exercised because you have 
got to save your voice. We are going to have 2 years of this stuff 
where they can do anything they want. This bill is simply giving them 
the keys to the hen house. The fox has now got it. He has got votes in 
the Senate, got votes in the House, and the President is going to send 
up stuff here and he does not have to balance any budget anymore.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The Chair would respectfully 
rule that the gentleman not make such personal references to the 
President of the United States. The gentleman may proceed in order.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. But you all understand where it is coming from, do you 
not? I mean it is not falling out of the sky. This is a concentrated 
effort, and what they wanted to do was they wanted to give all those 
taxes away so there would be no money to deal with social programs, and 
now it happens and they are suddenly afraid. They were fools before. 
They were saying, well, you can give it all away and we do not have to 
worry. We will just stiffen our spine and when the people come in here 
begging, we will send them away. Then they suddenly found out that the 
people coming in here were veterans.
  I mean we are going to war. We are going to create a whole bunch more 
veterans. Are we going to take care of them? Go to my veterans hospital 
and you will find out what they are doing right now. Or poor people, of 
course they do not count anyway. So never mind. Let them yell all they 
want. And education, well, what do we care about stooges? Let them pile 
on some more debt.
  This is a blank check to the executive branch to write and spend 
endlessly. And an unfortunate chairman of the committee has to come out 
here and defend this all by himself. No one will come here and speak 
with him. He is the only one. They put him out there and they said you 
are the chairman, you go carry this and just take the lumps, it will 
not make any difference because down at the White House we will write 
up some stuff and we will spend on war, we will spend the $200 billion 
going to war in Iraq over the next 10 years. That is no problem. We can 
find that anywhere.
  Let us see what else we can find. Oh, we have got to have that 
insurance for terrorism. Of course that will not cost anything. And in 
this bill that is coming up next they have got additional money for 
Medicare. Do my colleagues know what they did? They went down to CBO 
and they said CBO, do not score this, do not show it cost anything, so 
they can bring it out here and they can say it does not cost anything, 
CBO says there is no scoring.
  I mean this game is rigged, and you are watching this game be rigged 
right in front of your eyes. This will be when you come back and want 
to balance the budget and you look for some rules, you gave them away 
on whatever this is, the 15th of November. Vote for the recommittal.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again for the benefit of the Members, a yes vote is to follow the 
budget, follow our plan that we have put in place, and a no vote cuts 
Medicare, crop insurance, military health, child enforcement, veterans 
education, and the victims of September 11. It is that simple. Again, 
these are good discussions, nice philosophical arguments, but the facts 
are still the facts. If you vote for the motion to recommit, you are 
cutting Medicare. If you vote yes, you are allowing us to continue to 
follow the budget plan that has been put in place.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me make clear that the motion to recommit will wipe clean the 
scorecard, $125 billion on the scorecard this

[[Page H8788]]

year. It will wipe it clean for 2003. It will only apply to the future 
and it will only require that the President give us a budget which 
shows some light at the end of the tunnel, a balanced budget by 2008. 
So for this year and next year, it will allow us the freedom of 
movement without being concerned about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, this will probably be the last legislative 
item that I will debate in my House career; and it is ironic that, 
given that when I came here as a Member of the House we heard about how 
we had deficits as far as the eye can see, and, in fact, even before 
that when I was a member of the staff of this body back in the 1980s we 
went through a quadrupling of the national debt and we went through 
Gramm-Rudman I and Gramm-Rudman II, and we never could seem to get a 
handle on the deficit until 1990 with the Budget Control and 
Enforcement Act, and we imposed PAYGO and spending caps. Then we 
extended it in 1993. Then when I got here the Republicans extended in 
1997. Then, lo and behold, we got control of the deficit, and we began 
to argue about how much public debt we could pay down.
  Now, in the age of deficits again where we are going to have a $200 
billion deficit in the current fiscal year, apparently, we are going to 
repeal all the rules. We might as well repeal the Unified Budget Act 
and go back to the pre-68 rules when we do not know what the real 
budget is, the Committee on Appropriations can spend what they want to, 
the Committee on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committee can 
spend what they want to, and at some point, at some point, the American 
people will pay the tab.
  I am afraid that is where we are heading with this. I do not think 
this is where the chairman wants to go, but I understand he has to 
follow his orders. But how ironic, coming in when it was deficits as 
far as the eye can see, and we had a chance to pay down the debt and we 
started to do it, I leave on a note where once again it is deficits as 
far as the eye can see; and we are not doing anything to correct it. In 
fact, we are stepping on the gas to make it even worse.
  I think we are going to regret this day for a long time when we see 
our national debt balloon far beyond anything this country has ever 
seen before, and I do not think there is any Member of this House who 
has an idea of how they are going to deal with it, particularly if they 
do this today. So I hope we will defeat this really unsatisfactory 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit, which our 
distinguished colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) will be 
offering.
  Today's vote represents a fork in the road of Federal budgeting. We 
must decide whether to continue down the path of deeper budget deficits 
or to take those first difficult steps toward returning to a balanced 
budget.
  The pay-as-you-go rule expired at the end of fiscal year 2002. 
However, PAYGO sequestration for prior laws extends through 2006. These 
PAYGO rules, which were adopted as part of the 1990 bipartisan budget 
agreement, have been crucial to the progress that we made during the 
1990s to go from record budget deficits to budget surpluses, surpluses 
that let us retire $400 billion in the national debt.
  With the help of PAYGO and statutory limits on discretionary 
spending, we were able to improve the bottom line of the budget for 8 
consecutive years, culminating in surpluses for fiscal years 1998 
through 2000. Unfortunately, the 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus that 
was projected less than 2 years ago has almost disappeared, and the 
budget has fallen back into annual deficit.
  Now more than ever, it is essential that we reaffirm our commitment 
to the budget tools that can help us restore budget discipline and 
return the Federal Government to a balanced budget. That is why I am 
disappointed that the Republican leadership has decided to bring to the 
floor legislation that would eliminate PAYGO sequestration for all 
future years to which the law applies.
  Mr. Speaker, no one wants across-the-board cuts to Medicare or 
veterans' education or child support enforcement or other domestic 
priorities; and contrary to the assertion of the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, the motion to recommit would do no such thing.
  The Republican solution, that we ignore the long-term budget deficits 
facing our Nation, will not make them go away. We should not ignore our 
budget problems; we should work to solve them.
  The Spratt motion to recommit would avoid domestic spending cuts by 
clearing the PAYGO scorecard for 2002 and 2003. But unlike H.R. 5708, 
the Spratt motion would require the President to submit a budget that 
achieves balance within 5 years, excluding the Social Security trust 
fund surplus, before clearing the PAYGO scorecard for fiscal years 2004 
through 2006. The motion to recommit would, therefore, hold Republicans 
and the President to their professed goal of achieving fiscal balance 
and protecting Social Security revenues in the process. To avoid future 
across-the-board cuts, the President would have to reverse course and 
move the budget back into surplus.
  Mr. Speaker, for several months we have been urging the President to 
hold bipartisan budget negotiations to chart a path back to fiscal 
control. It is well past time for the President to present Congress 
with a budget that acknowledges the new fiscal realities confronting 
our Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit and 
to take the first steps toward restoring fiscal discipline to the 
Federal budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not some type of rhetorical debating society we 
are having tonight or some philosophical argument. This is a group of 
Members who feel it is important enough to stand up in this body 
tonight to warn the American people about the disastrous fiscal course 
that this Congress and this administration have embarked upon, which is 
leading to exploding deficits again and an accumulation of a national 
debt at exactly the wrong moment in our Nation's mystery, when we have 
close to 80 million Americans, so-called baby boom generation, all 
marching lockstep to their retirement in a few short years; and the 
decisions that we need to make today to prepare the next generation to 
deal with that challenge are not being made. In fact, one of the fiscal 
disciplinary rules that has worked well to rein in spending, to 
maintain balance in our budgetary choices, they are seeking to waive 
over the next 5 years.
  I think everyone agrees that this bill before us is a recognition of 
a failed budgetary policy of large tax cuts that were not paid for and 
new spending programs were not paid for. To avoid the inevitable 
across-the-board cuts with Medicare and veterans benefits and farm 
programs, we have to pass this legislation.
  But I for the life of me do not understand why we cannot deal with 
the fiscal mess created this fiscal year, give them a little leeway in 
the next fiscal year, but then support a motion to recommit that calls 
upon the President to submit a balanced budget plan that leaves our 
hands and their hands off from Social Security surpluses in the 
following years so we have a chance to reverse the fiscal course that 
we have embarked upon.
  What is different today than in the past is we do not have the luxury 
of the 1990s to bring the budget back into balance and to run surpluses 
to reduce the debt before the baby boomers start their retirement. It 
is now or never. We can be back next year having another philosophical 
debate, but at that time we are going to be much deeper in the hole; 
and I cannot think of anything

[[Page H8789]]

more morally irresponsible than to leave the next generation with this 
mountain of debt for them to bail the country out of.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, in 1990, President Bush, looking at runaway 
deficits, put his political career on the line, convened a bipartisan 
summit on the budget and produced some very important budget rules to 
get a handle on these out-of-control deficits. Perhaps the most 
important facets of those rules were pay-as-you-go requirements, 
requirements that if you spend more tax money, you have got to show 
where it is accounted for in the budget so you do not run the deficits 
deeper. If you cut revenue, you got to show where it is accounted for 
and reduce spending so you do not run those deficits deeper. Those pay-
as-you-go requirements have been critical to getting us to a surplus.
  Now we are once again dealing with another President and runaway 
deficits, and we are looking at a completely different response.
  I have read with interest accounts of the majority in terms of their 
agenda for the Congress ahead: make the tax cuts permanent, add 
prescription drug coverage to Medicare. On the one hand you reduce 
revenue, on the other hands you increase spending. I am wondering how 
does all this add up? With this legislation we see they have no 
intention whatsoever of making it add up. They are going to do it on 
the deficit. They are going to run up the debt.
  Now, the motion to recommit deals with every spending problem that 
the chairman has illustrated tonight, Medicare fraud programs, the like 
of it. But over the long term, can we not agree as Republicans and 
Democrats that this is not the decade to run government on the debt? 
Because next decade, as the baby boomers retire, expenses are 
inevitably going to go up, and go up significantly.
  This will be the greatest self-indulgent act of the self-indulgent 
baby boom generation if we do not pay our way now and rely on the kids 
to bail out the debt that this will bring upon the country. There is 
not a family I represent that plans for their retirement by running up 
the debt with the hope that the children will pay for them in 
retirement. It is wrong for us to do it as a country. Let us reject 
this approach. Let us pass the motion to recommit.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the very distinguished gentleman who just spoke 
suggested that he read with interest our plan, and we all appreciate 
the fact that he did read with interest our plan. At least we have a 
plan to read. Since September 11, the Democrats in both bodies have yet 
to present a plan on how to deal with this.
  We understand that you oppose our position. We understand that you 
oppose the President's plan. We understand that you oppose the 
direction that we have taken, and that is fine. You have a right to do 
so.
  But I also believe if you are going to complain, you also need to 
propose; and as of yet, your side has yet to propose an alternative. 
That is why tonight we are forced to continue to go down the road that 
we are going, continue to follow the plan that we have put into place 
in the House, together with the President, and that is why tonight it 
is important for us to vote down the motion to recommit, which would 
not follow that plan, and allow this bill to pass so that we do not 
provide cuts in Medicare and crop insurance, which I know are important 
to the gentleman as well as to myself and our States, as well as to 
military health, child enforcement, veterans' education and the victims 
of September 11.
  It is, again, not a philosophical discussion, as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin said. These are real issues that are going to affect people 
in a real way. We want to prevent the cuts from happening. As of yet, 
we see no plan on how to accomplish what you are demanding from the 
President, even from your side, not even an idea, not even a plan.
  A few are bold enough to come down and say raise taxes. A few are 
bold enough to come down and say that entitlements should be increased. 
But, by and large, I have not seen anything that has gotten close to a 
majority of support from the Democratic side.
  So I would suggest to the gentleman that while he reads with interest 
our plan, we wait with interest for yours.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I would just say in response to my friend from Iowa, the question I 
had about the gentleman's plan is how we pay for it. I see the revenue 
cuts, I see the spending increases, and the question I had was, How is 
this paid for?
  I believe that by eliminating the budget rules, as you do in this 
resolution, the answer is clear: you have no intention of paying for 
it. You will pay for it on the debt that you will pass on to our 
children.
  We would propose in our motion to recommit another way. Let us at 
least agree that by 5 years from now, by 5 years from now, on a 
bipartisan basis, we will be having plans to get us to a balanced 
budget and stop the debt on our children.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is asking how are we going to pay for it? 
We passed a budget. That is how we are going to pay for it.
  But I guess my question is, How did you pay for your Medicare plan 
that you voted for which costs $1 trillion? How were you going to pay 
for that? Let me see here: Pomeroy, Pomeroy, why, my goodness, Pomeroy 
is on here, without a budget. The gentleman from North Dakota voted for 
a plan that cost $1 trillion, and yet he has the audacity to come down 
and ask how I am going to pay for it?
  Let me look at another one here. Let us see, tax cuts. Oh, I cannot 
believe the gentleman from North Dakota would have voted for tax 
relief. Pomeroy. My goodness, he voted to reduce revenue, and he does 
not have a budget; and he comes down and asks me how I am going to do 
it?
  The double standard here is amazing.

                              {time}  1930

  We have a plan. I know the gentleman does not like it. Fine. Vote no. 
That is fine. But realize that when the gentleman votes no tonight, he 
is voting no for seniors. He is voting no for farmers. He is voting no 
for folks who are veterans. He is voting no for people who rely on 
these programs. Go ahead and vote no. Knock yourself out. Have a great 
philosophical discussion. These are facts that the gentleman cannot 
avoid. That is what he is voting no on. So it is great that he gets to 
vote for these great programs, trillion dollar drug benefits that the 
gentleman does not pay for and tax cuts that are not paid for, but then 
he comes down here and complains about our budget. Come up with a 
budget, come up with a plan, come up with some ideas, and then come 
back and tell us why ours are wrong. Otherwise, just vote no tonight 
and suffer the consequences.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I would just say back to my friend, the 
gentleman from Iowa, the issue is over 5 years, can we not agree we 
ought to balance the budget? The gentleman's plan does not balance the 
budget, the plan runs up on the debt. The gentleman has run into the 
budget rules that require pay-as-you-go requirements and tonight he 
eliminates those budget rules. This is Katie-bar-the-door on deficit 
spending and the chairman of the Committee on the Budget owes a great 
deal of personal responsibility for this action.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, right now, I do not believe that the 
majority of the people in this country realize that we are in debt over 
$6 trillion; we are paying $1 billion a day in interest on consumption 
that we are either unwilling to make cuts to bring the budget into 
balance, or we are unwilling and do not have the courage to raise

[[Page H8790]]

the revenue for a first class, world class military, a first class 
system of education, a health care system second to none.
  Last year we ran a unified deficit of $159 billion. The statutory 
debt ceiling will probably have to be increased again next year, 
creating further incentive for Congress to borrow more money, and it is 
in this light we are asked to vote on a bill that throws out the PAYGO 
rules, and for erasing the $60 billion debt. We are here tonight 
because the PAYGO rules have failed. We are passing on more and more 
debt to our children. Those are the facts.
  I would say to the gentleman from Iowa, my friend, you all are in 
control of this place, you are in charge, and all we are asking is that 
there be some plan put in place before we throw these rules out, these 
budgetary rules for 5 years, to at least get us, talk with us to get 
back to a plan that will let us get back in the black in 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I came here in 1988 because our country was awash in red 
ink and, sadly, tonight, in 2002, we are back awash in a sea of red ink 
for as far as the eye can see. We are engaged in a generational mugging 
of the young people of this country on a scale that is massive and has 
never before been done, and we are unwilling, all of us, Democrats, 
Republicans, Independents, you name it, we are unwilling to face up to 
it. If my colleagues will not talk to us and bring these bills where we 
cannot even have a chance to sit down and say within the next 5 years 
can we not agree on a plan as Americans, not as Democrats and 
Republicans, as Americans with a moral obligation to those who follow. 
That is all we are asking for.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for 
yielding me this time, and I appreciate his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague this, I say to the gentleman 
from Iowa. He may think it is cute, he may think it is funny, he may 
think it is smart to stand over there and act like the Blue Dogs did 
not submit a plan. He may think that because he put a rule up here that 
would not let us put a plan on the floor to be voted on that he did 
something cute. But let me tell my colleague something. He can continue 
to be intellectually dishonest, he can continue to deceive the American 
people, but he is passing on a burden to our children and 
grandchildren, and I will not be a part of it, and he is going to 
answer for it one of these days, and he deserves it. But I can tell my 
colleague this: It is not cute. So when my colleague is over there 
making those smart remarks, just remember, it is not funny.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time to explain 
to everybody what is happening here.
  In 1990, after years of trying to get our hands around the deficit, 
we finally had a budget summit with President Bush and we devised not 
only a 5-year plan for reducing the deficit, but we also passed 
something called a Budget Enforcement Act and it contained several new 
rules, budget process controls which have had a significant impact on 
our ability to get rid of the deficit.
  In particular, we adopted a set of discretionary spending ceilings, a 
ceiling on discretionary spending, we adopted it in 1991, we renewed it 
in 1993, and we extended it in 1997, and that held discretionary 
spending to substantially lower rates of increase than the 1980s. We 
also adopted something called the pay-as-you-go rule, which said with 
respect to entitlement spending, if you want to liberalize the 
entitlement benefit or add a new one, you have to pay for it or you 
have to go through the catalog of all of the other entitlements and 
reduce the entitlement by enough to pay for the new one you are 
creating or an increase in the benefit that you are providing for. In 
addition, with respect to tax cuts, we said if you want a tax cut, it 
will have to be budget neutral. You can cut taxes one place, but you 
have to increase them elsewhere so the deficit is not worsened, or you 
can offset a tax cut with an entitlement cut so that once again it is 
budget neutral.
  A lot of people at the time scoffed at these process changes on the 
grounds that we were just rearranging the deck chairs and they would 
not have any real results. One of those who was skeptical at the time 
was Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Fed. When he appeared before 
our committee this March, March 2, he said in response to my question, 
Congressman, I thought that whole set of rules had very little chance 
of working, and I was wrong. It really did matter, much to my surprise. 
The PAYGO rules, for example, have been extremely and always very 
useful. That is what the Chairman of the Fed said. He came back to us 
in September and repeated and said the same thing.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of our committee, 
on June 27 acknowledged that the President was seeking an extension of 
the discretionary caps and the PAYGO requirement and implied that that 
needed to be done. I think he and I were in basic agreement on that.
  What has happened is we never did it. I introduced legislation to 
that effect and it has never come to the floor of this place; we have 
never had a hearing on it. We have never done it. So we are here just 
before adjournment, the discretionary spending caps are gone in 2002. 
They are gone. The PAYGO rule has expired. It is gone. The 5-year 
budgets that we adopted in 1991 and 1993 and 1997 are gone. The last 
one ran out in 2002.
  So all of the devices we had to control the budget that worked 
spectacularly well in the 1990s; we reduced the deficit from $290 
billion when President Bush left office to $330 billion surplus in 
2000. When President Bush came to office, the second President Bush 
came to office, unlike his father, we gave him a budget in surplus, 
$127 billion in surplus. It is gone, and the budget devices that worked 
so well to help us contain the deficit, reduce the deficit every year 
for 8 straight years in the 1990s are gone too, and there is no effort 
here to reintroduce them.
  Now, there is one last vestige of the PAYGO rule. PAYGO required 
sequestration, across-the-board cuts. If you ignored the PAYGO rule and 
increased entitlements or cut taxes and therefore increased the 
deficit, there was a scorecard kept, and at the end of the year if that 
scorecard showed an excess amount on it, the law decreed across-the-
board reductions in spending in selected accounts. We are now faced 
with that particular law for this year and for years to come, because 
even though the PAYGO rule has expired, it still applies as to existing 
law and future years.
  This bill takes out that last vestige. We have done away with 
sequestration as to any future legislation, we have done away with the 
PAYGO rule and discretionary spending, no 5-year budget at all, it 
takes that last vestige. What it does, even worse, is it passes up the 
opportunity to take the legislation that we have offered to extend the 
PAYGO rule, to extend the authority for 5-year discretionary spending 
caps, to extend the authority for sequestration, to reinstall those 
budget disciplines, those process rules that got rid of the deficit in 
the 1990s, to reinstate them. This bill completely ignores that 
opportunity and simply wipes the slate clean.
  So what is happening here? What is this all about? The purpose of 
this is to clear the way for the next session of Congress with no 
disciplines whatsoever; tax cuts as much as you want. There will be no 
restraints, no 60-vote margins in the Senate, no other restraints, no 
PAYGO rules that have to be waived, no scorecard, nothing. This takes 
away all of the discipline at a time when the budget is literally in 
free-fall.
  We have a deficit that increases this year to $159 billion from a 
surplus of $127 billion last year. It goes up next year and the next 
year and the next year, and there is no plan in place, nothing implicit 
in the budget, no 5-year plan to deal with it, and this erases any hope 
whatsoever of that.
  Now, we are offering, we are offering a motion to recommit. The 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) will offer that motion, and it will 
simply say as of this year, next year, go ahead and wipe the scorecard 
clean. But as to future years, the scorecard will still be there, the 
PAYGO rule will still have that remaining applicability. However, it 
will not apply if the President sends us a budget which gets in balance 
finally by the year 2008.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a small thing to ask. If we are going to have 
any kind of

[[Page H8791]]

discipline, any kind of planning, it is the right thing to ask for. The 
right way to vote on this bill is to vote for the motion to recommit 
and then we will have something that we can live with and something 
that leaves at least some small modicum of discipline in place.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, budgeting is about choices, and it is about putting 
together a plan. We did so together with the President this last year. 
All of the items that we find on the PAYGO scorecard fit within that 
plan. All of the items as a result need to be taken care of as a result 
of that plan. This is our proposal to do so to avoid automatic 
sequestration by OMB.
  There has been a number of comments made tonight and I just want to 
respond to them. First of all, there have been those that say they want 
to sit down and they want to talk about the future budget, and that is 
fine. But you need a ticket to the dance and your ticket to the dance 
is to come up with a plan. Now, the Blue Dogs say they came up with a 
plan. Well, it is kind of interesting, the Blue Dogs, so-called Blue 
Dog plan was basically the Republican budget with a trigger. All right. 
That is kind of interesting. They did not really come up with any other 
ideas, except for the Republican budget with a trigger. Okay. It did 
not get any votes, and it did not get the majority of the votes, and, 
as a result, it really does not qualify much as a plan because it was 
our plan.
  There were really no other plans brought to the table. There were 
individual bills, however; substitutes, individual proposals. The 
gentleman from Texas had a farm bill that evidently does not 
technically fit if in fact you do not have a budget. The gentleman 
wrote it, wrote it under our budget, supported it, worked hard on it, I 
compliment the gentleman on it, I voted for it, because it fit within 
our budget plan. It would not fit now, would it, I would say to the 
gentleman and to any of my colleagues. Yet should we have automatic 
spending cuts? Should we have automatic cuts in Medicare in order to 
pay for it? No. And that is what this bill tonight does. It basically 
says we should not have automatic cuts in Medicare in order to 
accomplish that.

                              {time}  1945

  I will admit to my colleagues on both sides, and the gentleman from 
Arkansas, if he thought I was trying to be funny, I was not, because 
there is nothing funny about it; this is very serious. It is serious 
for both sides, because it is fine to come down here and say that the 
tax cuts were too big. Then have the guts to introduce a bill to repeal 
them. Have the guts to come down here and vote to increase taxes.
  They do not have a plan that does that. I do not see too many people 
with the guts to introduce that kind of legislation.
  The same is true on our side, though. We always talk about spending 
restraint. Boy, we can be spellbinding some nights about how we are 
going to restrain spending, cut spending. We have even said ``cut 
spending'' when in fact that is not really what is going on very often 
around here. Maybe it is allowing it to grow less than somebody's idea 
of where it should be, and therefore somebody thinks it has been cut.
  The bottom line is, as we go into this next budget, we have some huge 
choices that we are going to have to make. We have to be serious about 
them. But I do think that because of the situation that we find 
ourselves in it is fair to allow, particularly with PAYGO, which was 
never written to work during times of surpluses, it was only, only 
written and contemplated for times of deficits, that we should allow 
that to expire and rewrite the rules.
  While we allow that to expire, wiping the slate clean I think is a 
fair thing to do, particularly if it is going to result in cuts in 
Medicare, crop insurance, veterans' education, child support recovery, 
and the victims of September 11.
  So what we are suggesting tonight is very simple. That is what the 
vote is about. This is not about the budget. There is no budget process 
reform in this bill, trust me. I have written a budget process reform 
bill. I would know one when I saw it. This is not it, either. All this 
does is it does two things. It says, follow the budget; and do not 
allow for automatic cuts in Medicare, crop insurance, military, child 
support, veterans' education, September 11, and actually a whole host 
of other automatic cuts that would occur.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, would it be the chairman's intention in the 
next Congress to introduce legislation, pass it through our committee, 
bring it to the floor, which would reinstate discretionary spending 
caps and the PAYGO rule for 5 additional years?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I need 
to discuss that. I would be not only very happy to consider that, but I 
would even go further with regard to budget process issues. There are a 
number of them that should be discussed, now that we have an 
opportunity to do so.
  I would hope that we can do that quietly and calmly and with sober 
regard to the consequences of our actions. We have not done that. 
Unfortunately, people around here do not necessarily follow the budget 
process as well as they should; and as a result, demagoguery has 
reigned with regard to many of these budget rules in the past with 
regard to changes that we have tried to bring to the floor.
  I would hope that we could bring a budget process reform bill to the 
floor; I have written a PAYGO extension in the past that actually 
contemplated this very situation that we are in; and I would hope also 
caps.
  Mr. SPRATT. If the gentleman would yield further, Mr. Speaker, and 
sequestration?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I want to make the budget have the force of law, so that 
we cannot waive it all the time on the floor. That is a proposal that I 
recommended. There are a number that I would suggest that the committee 
and the Congress need to consider.
  But tonight we have a very simple situation that we need to address. 
It has been ministerially addressed in years past, and we should do so 
again tonight, and join together and prevent cuts to Medicare, crop 
insurance, military health, child support enforcement, veterans' 
education, and the victims of September 11.
  Let us follow the budget plan, let us pass this bill, and let us 
reject the motion to recommit, which basically says: let us not follow 
a plan, but let us wait and cut Medicare 3 years from now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
602, the bill is considered as read for amendment, and the previous 
question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Moore

  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill in its 
present form?
  Mr. MOORE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Moore moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5708 to the 
     Committee on the Budget with instructions to report the same 
     back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1. REDUCTION OF PREEXISTING PAYGO BALANCES.

       Upon the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget shall reduce any balances of direct 
     spending and receipts legislation for fiscal years 2002 and 
     2003 under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 to zero. If the President submits 
     a budget for the Government under section 1105(a) of title 
     31, United States Code, that projects an on-budget balance or 
     an on-budget surplus by fiscal year 2008, then such Director 
     shall reduce all balances of direct spending and receipts 
     legislation under such section 252 to zero.

  Mr. MOORE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?

[[Page H8792]]

  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion 
to recommit.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOORE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  (Mr. EDWARDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit 
and in opposition to the Republican deficit tax.
  Mr. Speaker, if the House Republican leadership continues forward 
with its fiscally irresponsible tax policies, it will be responsible 
for passing the largest tax increase in American history--the deficit 
tax. The deficit tax is real. It is permanent. It is a tax on small 
businesses and families all across America. In fact, on a per capita 
basis, the deficit tax cost each American citizen over $1000 last year. 
Very simply, as the $6 trillion national debt is increased, it 
increases the interest payments on that debt, which must be paid by 
taxing hardworking American families.
  As bad as the deficit tax is, there's even another burden resulting 
from increasing the national debt. It is called higher interest rates 
on loans for homes, cars, credit cards and small business. When the 
economy gets back on its feet, borrowing hundreds of billions of 
dollars to finance a huge national deficit will drive up interest 
rates, in effect, a tax increase on families and businesses.
  We all know that this measure tonight to address the pay-go rules was 
necessary for this year and next in order to prevent major cuts in 
entitlement programs such as Medicare and veterans benefits. However, 
by opposing the Moore motion to recommit, the Republican leadership in 
this House is throwing out fiscal discipline rules for several years 
after that. I will vote for this measure, because we cannot allow 
Medicare and veterans benefits to be slashed, but the Republican 
leadership, by forcing an up or down vote on suspending pay-go rules 
for the next four to five years, is leading this House down the path of 
higher national debt, higher annual deficits, and, yes, a deficit tax 
on our families and our children for the rest of their lives.
  House Republicans may brag about tax cuts at election time, but they 
should be honest in telling our families and children that they are 
imposing a permanent deficit tax that will take dollars out of their 
paychecks for generations to come.
  Instead of partisan budget bills, what this Congress should do for 
the good of our economy and the future of our children is to sit down 
on a bipartisan basis and make tough decisions on how to balance the 
federal budget.
  That would be the right thing to do.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, a year ago, several of my colleagues and I 
who believe in fiscal responsibility urged caution in making long-term 
commitments for tax cuts or new spending programs. We were concerned 
that budget projections were based on unrealistic economic assumptions 
and that the projected surplus might never materialize. We were 
concerned that large tax cuts and spending programs could drive up the 
deficit and add to our $6.3 trillion national debt. Our warnings were 
ignored.
  This year, Congress will be borrowing virtually all of the Social 
Security surplus for the next decade. There were those who said we will 
have enough money for everything. That turned out not to be true, Mr. 
Speaker. Next year we will have a deficit of $127 billion.
  Today Congress is considering legislation that would wipe the slate 
clean for the next 5 years. This would allow Congress to avoid 
responsibility for legislation, adding billions more to the national 
debt by wiping clean the PAYGO scorecard. What is worse, this bill 
provides no safeguard for the future, Mr. Speaker; no guarantees that 
our children and grandchildren will not suffer under a massive national 
debt, now at $6.3 trillion.
  American families live by three basic rules: number one, do not spend 
more money than you make; number two, pay your debts; number three, 
invest in the basics of the future. I think Congress should live by 
those same simple rules.
  I am glad that American families do not use Congress' accounting 
methods, Mr. Speaker. American families cannot wipe the slate clean 
when they overspend. The Blue Dogs have repeatedly said that Congress 
and the President need to sit down and develop a plan to deal with our 
escalating national debt: no recriminations, no finger-pointing, or 
blaming, but just sit down and try to come up with a plan out of this 
crisis. Unfortunately, our calls have been ignored, leaving us in the 
situation we face today.
  This motion to recommit requires as a condition of waiving the PAYGO 
rules that the President present a balanced budget next year. The 
President's budget would be required to put us on a path to balancing 
the budget by 2008 without borrowing the Social Security surplus, a 
goal that I believe every Member of this Congress wants.
  This motion to recommit allows the slate to be wiped clean for fiscal 
year 2003 to avoid sequestration, because it is too late to do anything 
about the current fiscal year. There would be no cuts in any programs 
that have been commented on by the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget. This is the least we can do to stop the bleeding, to turn back 
red ink and get us in the black again, and to get our country out of 
the deficit ditch and back on the way to fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the President said in his first address to 
the Congress that there were three reasons why this country may have to 
return to deficits: one was an emergency, one was a war, one was an 
economic recession. There is no one in this body who predicted any of 
those three.
  Warnings were not heeded? Wake up. There was not anybody warning 
about Osama bin Laden and September 11, so do not make those 
accusations. They are not true. That is why we find ourselves in a 
deficit.
  The President submitted a plan last year, and he will submit a plan 
this year, which he must do by law. The House last year passed a plan. 
The House will do so again this year, which we must do so by law.
  The other body, and I know I have to be careful, here. I do not want 
to say anything wrong, because we have our rules. However, my 
understanding is what I am allowed to say is that no budget passed in 
the other body last year. We will wait and see what happens this next 
year.
  The point I am getting at is that we need a plan in order to move 
forward. The President has proved he has a plan. The House has proved 
they have a plan. No other plans have been presented. No other plans 
have received a majority of support. No other plans have seen the light 
of day. Therefore, let us follow the plan that the President has laid 
out.
  Let us not allow us to get off track with absolutely no vision for 
the future, which is what is being suggested here tonight. Instead, let 
us reject the motion to recommit, and let us vote to prevent automatic 
cuts to Medicare, to veterans' health, to veterans' benefits, veterans' 
education, to crop insurance, and the like. These Draconian cuts are 
not necessary if we continue to follow the plan that the President and 
the House has laid out.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and 
vote to prevent these cuts on final passage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 201, not voting 43, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 481]

                               AYES--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)

[[Page H8793]]


     Clayton
     Clement
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--201

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--43

     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Callahan
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Ehrlich
     Frost
     Gillmor
     Grucci
     Hilliard
     Hooley
     Houghton
     LaFalce
     LaTourette
     Lipinski
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Moran (VA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Roukema
     Smith (MI)
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Toomey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2023

  Messrs. ABERCROMBIE, UDALL of Colorado and SNYDER changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 366, 
noes 19, not voting 46, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 482]

                               AYES--366

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker

[[Page H8794]]


     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                                NOES--19

     Blumenauer
     Capuano
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dooley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Kleczka
     Langevin
     Lee
     Olver
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Taylor (MS)
     Visclosky
     Waters

                             NOT VOTING--46

     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Callahan
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Ehrlich
     Frost
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Hilliard
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Jenkins
     LaFalce
     LaTourette
     Lipinski
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (VA)
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Roukema
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Toomey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2033

  Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. RIVERS changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on November 14, 2002, this Member 
unavoidably missed two roll call votes. On Roll Call Number 481 (motion 
to recommit on H.R. 5708, a bill to reduce pre-existing PAYBO 
Balances), this Member would have voted ``no.'' On Roll Call Number 482 
(final passage of H.R. 5708), this Member would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________