[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 45 (Thursday, March 20, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H2138-H2145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 95, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 151 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 151
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2004 and setting forth appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013. The first
reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with.
All points of order against consideration of the concurrent
resolution are waived. General debate shall not exceed three
hours, with two hours of general debate confined to the
congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Budget, and one hour of general debate on the subject of
economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by
Representative Saxton of New Jersey and Representative Stark
of California or their designees. After general debate the
concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under
the five-minute rule. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute specified in part A of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
concurrent resolution, as amended, shall be considered as
read. No further amendment shall be in order except those
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules.
Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All
points of order against the amendments printed in the report
are waived except that the adoption of a further amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of
consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment.
After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent
resolution for further amendment, and a final period of
general debate, which shall not exceed 20 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall
rise and report the concurrent resolution, as amended, to the
House with such further amendment as may have been adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final
adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered
by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to
section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question
of its adoption.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), 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, House Resolution 151 is a structured rule providing 3
hours of general debate with 2 hours equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1
hour on economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark).
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
concurrent resolution. It further provides that the amendment in the
nature of a substitute specified in Part A of the Committee on Rules
report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted in
the House and in the Committee of the Whole.
The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in Part B of
the Committee on Rules report which may be offered only in the order
printed in the report. Said amendments may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by an opponent and a
proponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in
the report, except that the adoption of a further amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration
of the concurrent resolution for amendment.
Resolution 151 also provides, upon the conclusion of consideration of
the concurrent resolution for amendment, for a final period of general
debate not to exceed 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
Finally, the rule permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical consistency
and provides that the concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a
demand for a division of the question of its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, as the House takes up the proposed Federal budget for
fiscal year 2004, it does so with two overriding objectives in mind: to
successfully complete the war we have just begun in Iraq, and to
revitalize our Nation's economy today while building a firm foundation
for long-term economic growth.
The budget resolution passed by the Committee on the Budget reflects
these realities and does so in a time of extraordinary fiscal strain.
The members of the Committee on the Budget are to be commended for
completing their work in a timely manner.
This budget resolution, of course, is only the first step in the long
process by which Congress sets the Nation's spending and revenue
policies. Much hard work remains to be done by the various committees
of jurisdiction, and the Committee on the Budget has, in large measure,
left those committees the flexibility to make decisions on specific
programs and priorities.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, the challenges before us in
this area are great, and we are not alone. State and local governments
all across the country are struggling to tighten their belts, and we
must do the same thing here in Washington, D.C. Hard choices are
inevitable, and no Member is likely to get everything he or she would
like to see in this budget resolution, but we must act, and we must act
now. All of us learned a painful lesson this last year about the
consequences of allowing the budget process to break down.
Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 95 provides for a Federal
budget of $2.22 trillion, an increase of 2.9 percent or $62 billion
over the current fiscal year. It puts the Nation back on a path to a
balanced budget, which would be achieved by the year 2012, 9 years from
now, with the projected budget surplus of $21 billion that year.
Although there will be ample time during general debate to highlight
key provisions of the resolution, I am particularly pleased to advise
my colleagues that the proposed manager's amendment to the resolution
reinstates the reserve fund for Medicare, which puts, in essence, a
fence around the $400 billion to fund Medicare modernization and
prescription drug coverage for older Americans.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me remind Members that the budget
resolution is only a blueprint in the broadest sense. The details will
take shape in coming months, but the sooner we can complete this
blueprint and move on to the hard work of enacting its various
components, the better off we will be. Neither the war in Iraq nor the
urgent work of economic recovery can afford to be hindered simply
because the
[[Page H2139]]
budget resolution is not perfect in the eyes of every Member of
Congress.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the
rule and the underlying concurrent resolution on the budget.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is something in politics called having a tin ear.
That means being totally oblivious to everything around you.
Right now we have troops in the field, a war has begun, and we should
be doing everything we can to speak with one voice and achieve national
unity. Yet the Republican leadership insists at this moment in bringing
to the floor one of the most partisan, divisive issues of the entire
year. I question their judgment and their timing. I would hope that we
would move fairly quickly today to a resolution supporting our troops
in the field. Unfortunately, our Republican friends prefer to have on
the floor a matter of high partisanship which will divide this
Congress.
Like all of my colleagues, Republicans as well as Democrats, and like
the American people themselves, I fully support our troops. I hope and
pray that they will accomplish their mission as quickly and safely as
possible.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I have argued that we should not be
considering this bill today. Republicans have offered a budget that is
as partisan as it is divisive, as dishonest as it is dangerous to the
country, and, at a time like this, when the United States Congress
should be demonstrating its unity to the world, I fear that bringing it
to the floor guarantees a divisive debate.
But that is what Republican leaders have done today. And
unfortunately, there is no minimizing the differences between the
Democratic and Republican budgets. The Democratic budget alternatives
offered by the Committee on the Budget ranking member, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), is a responsible plan to strengthen
national security and restore economic growth and fiscal
responsibility. It tightens Federal spending and balances the budget
using honest accounting, but it still meets priorities like defense,
education, and health care, and it does more for homeland security than
the Republican budget does.
There are two other budget alternatives offered by groups of
Democrats: the Blue Dogs on one hand, and the Congressional Black
Caucus and Progressive Caucus on the other. They are worthwhile, and I
am glad that they are in order under this rule.
The Republican budget stands in stark contrast, Mr. Speaker. The
Republican budget is intellectually dishonest, morally indefensible,
and just plain bad for our economy and our Nation. It explodes the
deficit and raises the death tax on all Americans. It shortchanges
homeland security to pay for tax breaks for millionaires, and it proves
once again just how out of touch House Republicans truly are.
At a time which this Nation must come together, Republicans offer a
budget that will pull us apart. Simply put, the Republican budget
separates Americans into two categories: winners and losers. The
winners are the wealthiest few who get hundreds of billions of dollars
in tax breaks; the losers are everyone else, the people who have to
sacrifice to pay for those tax breaks for the wealthiest few.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, never have so many been asked to
sacrifice for so few.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget skimps on homeland security. It
slashes priorities like education and health care. It shortchanges
veterans and farmers, and it still explodes the deficits. That is
because the Republican budget is a shameless work of fiction. It calls
for draconian cuts, cuts in priorities like veterans' benefits, student
loans, and law enforcement, and still gives massive tax breaks to the
wealthiest. But it requires the tax breaks to be enacted by April 11
and gives Republicans until July 11 to make the spending cuts.
Mr. Speaker, when you get your dessert before you eat your spinach,
you never eat your spinach. Any American parent can tell us that, and
so can anyone else who has watched the Republican budget charade drive
up the deficit over the past few years. As the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm), the foremost proponent of fiscal responsibility in this
House, told us yesterday in the Committee on Rules, the tax cuts will
be enacted, and the spending cuts will be abandoned, and the deficit
will continue to explode.
Why are Republicans foisting this dangerous budget on America and on
our economy? Mr. Speaker, for one simple reason: because they
stubbornly insist on giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest few.
They say that to govern is to choose. Well, take a look at the
consequences of the choices Republicans have made in this budget.
American troops are at war, but Republicans chose to shortchange the
veterans who defended this Nation in past years and to give tax breaks
to millionaires. That is why the Veterans of Foreign Wars opposes the
Republican budget. Republicans chose to slash education, and to give
tax breaks to millionaires. They chose to cut health care for children
and seniors on Medicaid, and to give tax breaks to millionaires.
{time} 1245
They chose to cut assistance to farmers and to give tax breaks to
millionaires. That is why the conservative Farm Bureau opposes the
Republican budget. Republicans are even shortchanging homeland
security; and once again, they are making sure millionaires get all the
tax breaks they want.
Mr. Speaker, despite all these cruel cuts, cuts that touch almost all
Americans and their families, this Republican budget still explodes the
deficit. All the budget gimmicks and phony accounting in the world,
what President Bush once called fuzzy math, cannot hide that truth.
All in all, the Republicans are proposing an economic horror show at
a time when Americans are still suffering from the latest Republican
recession. Since President Bush took office, 2.5 million Americans have
lost their jobs in the private sector, the surplus has gone, and last
year's deficit was $317 billion.
But Republicans refuse to face that fact, so they propose a budget
that would actually harm the economy by driving the Nation deeper into
debt, raising the debt tax on all Americans and their children, and
increasing families' mortgage payments and credit card bills.
Moreover, this Republican budget does not account for how we are
going to pay for a war with Iraq that has begun. So yesterday in the
Committee on Rules the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the top
Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, offered an amendment to
set aside $20 billion in a contingency fund to begin paying for the
war. But Republican leaders refused to allow the House to vote on it.
Mr. Speaker, from veterans and farmers to students and seniors, this
budget asks almost everyone in America to sacrifice. Everyone, that is,
but the millionaires who get the big tax breaks. That is not just
wrong; it is fiscally irresponsible. It is bad for the economy, and it
is bad for America.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, we are one country and we
are one Congress, especially when our troops are risking their lives
abroad to protect us here at home. I am very disappointed that the
Republican budget fails to demonstrate that.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and vote for the
Democratic alternative offered by the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt), and join Democrats in restoring fiscal responsibility and
protecting the economy against more of the same failed Republican
economic policies.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I urge all
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting
House Resolution 151, which provides for the consideration of the
fiscal year 2004 budget resolution.
[[Page H2140]]
H. Res. 151 is a conventional rule for consideration of the annual
budget resolution, and it provides for the consideration of four
amendments in the nature of a substitute, including the so-called Blue
Dog budget, the Progressive and Black Caucus budget, the Republican
Study Committee's budget, and the minority leader's budget.
I want to commend my friend and colleague, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for
crafting a budget that understands that we have an obligation to, first
and foremost, fund our Armed Forces and protect the people of the
United States; second, strengthen the American economy; and, third,
maintain our commitment to priorities such as education, health care,
welfare reform, while ensuring long-term fiscal responsibility.
To protect the United States, our budget must fund both homeland
security and national defense priorities. Since World War II, the
United States has been the world leader in freedom and democracy. As
this leader, we have the responsibility of defending these principles
throughout the world.
Our commitment, however, is sustained through the perseverance and
strength of our Nation's military. Without the efforts of these heroes,
our Nation could not possibly be the bastion of freedom and democracy
it is today. We cannot possibly expect these individuals and our Nation
to continue to bear this responsibility without providing the absolute
best possible equipment for the task at hand. This budget provides that
funding. It allocates funding for the Department of Defense to continue
the mission to eliminate terrorism across the world, increases military
personnel pay for our Armed Forces, and targets funding to ensure the
deployment of our national ballistic missile defense.
In terms of homeland security, I am pleased that our budget provides
$890 million in funding for Project Bioshield to secure vaccines
against bioterrorism attacks, $3.35 billion for first responder
training and equipment, and billions more to improve security and
assess future threats to our Nation's airports, nuclear power plants,
water facilities, and telecommunications networks.
Second, it is clear that our economy remains sluggish and that our
budget must stimulate growth and get our fellow Americans back to work.
To achieve this, our budget includes President Bush's jobs and economic
growth plan, including an accelerated reduction in the marriage
penalty, an increase in the child tax credit, and an overall
acceleration of all tax rate cuts.
I always welcome this debate because it will speak volumes about the
differing opinions on the role of the Federal Government in the lives
of the American people. We continue to believe that individuals make
much better choices with their money than the government can. At this
time, not only am I certain that the American people will make better
choices with their money, but that returning it to them will also help
promote investment and increase consumer spending, which will in turn
enhance our economy.
In its entirety, our budget is a commonsense plan to provide security
for the American people by funding domestic and international security,
invigorating the American economy, returning funds to the American
people, strengthening Social Security, and reaffirming our recent
successful welfare reforms.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. I urge my colleagues to support the
rule so we may begin the debate on the multiple budget options before
the House today.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this is a time that budgets should reflect our Nation's
priorities. This irresponsible budget fails to do that and certainly
fails to reflect the priorities of my district. This budget is opposed
by the Farm Bureau and by many veterans groups. Why? Because it cuts
money to both farmers and veterans. Why does it make those cuts? In
order to give tax cuts to people that make over $300,000 a year.
I do not have any problem with people making over $300,000 a year.
The problem is, we are running a huge deficit. This is not the time to
make those kinds of tax cuts. This budget fails our children. Not only
does it pass on an incredible amount of debt to future generations; it
fails to invest in our future through education. Why does it do this?
To give tax cuts to the wealthiest.
This is a bad rule which fails to make in order simple amendments
designed to improve it. During committee, I attempted to get more money
in for our veterans. This is not the time to cut their health care;
this is not the time to cut their compensation.
I also went to the Committee on Rules and I said, we need to address
a couple of issues in this budget. Actually, we need to address a lot
of them, but I addressed one: homeland security. This is not the time
to be chintzy about homeland security; this is a time to make sure our
communities and our States have the money they need to secure our
future.
I said, this budget needs to provide for IDEA. This is a promise we
made 28 years ago to our schools. This budget does not do that. Why
does it not do that? Because it wanted to give money to the wealthiest.
The Republican budget is irresponsible. Please vote for the
Democratic budget, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a member of the
Committee on the Budget.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am a member of the Budget Committee. It is my
first year on this committee and my ninth year on the Appropriations
Committee. Certainly I am pleased with the progress that we have made
during my 8 years of service in the Congress in terms of what we have
been able to do on the budget.
In 1995, a Democrat President came before this Congress and proposed
deficits as far as the eye could see: the first decade, deficits of
$200 billion a year; then $300 billion a year every year after that. We
Republicans said that we could do it differently. We said we could make
the tough choices, and we enacted a budget resolution in 1995 to say
that we would balance the budget in 7 years.
We had a little good luck with the economy, I think in large part
because of our tax cuts that we gave to the American people, and we
were able to balance the budget in half that time. Now, this day, in
2003, we are facing deficits.
So what happened between those successful days of surpluses and the
budget deficit that we are facing right now? The main thing that
happened to our budget to put us back into deficits is, frankly, the
terrorist attack of 9-11, 2001. That one event, Mr. Speaker, cost us
$80 billion in additional expenditures in one fiscal year alone, and an
additional $200 billion, approximately, in lost revenue. So it is no
wonder that that hit to our economy has cost us the surplus, and that
we are back into deficits.
Of course, we are experiencing a recession now, and we have to
address that, also. It has been another part of this deficit.
But this debate today, as provided for under the rule, Mr. Speaker,
will be very instructive. I just want to point out to my colleagues,
Mr. Speaker, that everyone today will want to come down to the floor
and decry deficit spending. We will not hear one single Member of this
House of Representatives come to the floor today and advocate deficits
or say they like deficits.
The big difference in the debate, as provided for under this rule, is
how we propose to tackle the problem. Today--this budget debate--is one
of the best opportunities to see the differences between the two
political parties on this issue. My friend, the gentleman from Georgia
who spoke just a few moments ago, is exactly correct on this. It is
very instructive because it represents two very different philosophies
of spending.
With all due respect, my Democrat friends will present proposals
today that say they want to attack the deficit problem by enacting
higher taxes and higher spending. I say that with all due respect. It
is their political philosophy and it is simply a fact.
On the other hand, the House Republican budget that I support today,
presents a plan to balance the Federal
[[Page H2141]]
budget in 9 years. How do we do that? We do that the way we always try
to do it, by keeping the pressure on to hold down Federal expenditures
and the rate of growth of Federal spending, and by boosting the economy
by reducing the tax burden on hardworking Americans.
Some people have said that our budget is too austere, that it does
not spend enough money. We will have that debate today. But I would
like for my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to look at this chart about where
spending has been under the 8 years of Republican majorities and where
it will go under the budget resolution. This spending trend of non-
Social Security mandatory outlays in billions of dollars shows that
this very austere budget will still amount to quite an increase in
Federal expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, let's not let anyone tell us that we are actually
cutting Federal spending in anything we do today. The question is
simply, What is the rate of growth and who will grow it at a larger
rate? Our budget grows the total Federal budget at a rate of 3.1
percent for next year. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is an adequate figure,
considering the fact that we are going to have to spend more money on
national defense and that we are in a recession and we need to give the
American taxpayer more of their money back in the form of tax cuts to
stimulate the economy.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my chairman, the gentleman from Iowa
(Chairman Nussle), on this budget. I thank him for working with me as a
new member of the Committee, and certainly I intend to support this
budget resolution. I ask each of my colleagues to join in a ``yes''
vote on the rule and also on the Republican budget proposal.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the preceding speaker asked what were the differences
between the surpluses piled up during the second half of the Clinton
Presidency and the deficits piled up during the first 2 years of the
Bush Presidency.
True, there was a terrible attack on our country, and we have had to
pay quite a bit because of the consequences of that. But I would
suggest that the $1 trillion tax cut forced through by the new
administration is the main reason why we face the deficits we have
today. The $1 trillion, which primarily benefited the wealthy, forced
through by the new administration, is the primary reason why we have
the large deficits we have today, rather than the surpluses enjoyed
during the Clinton Presidency.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards).
{time} 1300
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened and deeply disappointed that
this divisive, partisan budget bill is being brought up on a day when
we Americans should be coming together to show support for our soldiers
and troops, servicemen and women in Iraq. Young Americans are fighting
for our country even as we speak. They are in harm's way and deserve
our full attention and support today.
Instead the Republican House leadership has us debating a partisan
bill that cuts taxes for the wealthiest Americans who sit safely here
at home and astonishingly pays for those tax cuts by cutting benefits
to war-wounded veterans.
To do so at any time would be wrong. To do so during the first 4
hours of our war in Iraq is shameful. Is the altar of dividend tax cuts
so sacred to our House Republican leadership that it is even willing to
cut veterans' benefits by over $28 billion on the day our future
veterans are risking their lives for our country?
Tax cuts for the wealthy, paid for by benefit cuts to veterans, is
this the new Republican model for the long time-honored American
tradition of shared sacrifice in time of war?
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will pay attention to the words of
the national commander of the Disabled American Veterans, the honored
and distinguished Edward R. Heath, Senior. This is what he said just 3
days ago in his letter to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert),
the Speaker of the House.
``Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls
of our government, that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our
Nation's heroes and rob our programs, health care and disability
compensation to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?''
Mr. Heath also went on to say that, Mr. Speaker, this budget
dishonors the service of millions of service-connected disabled
veterans, including combat-disabled veterans, and seriously erodes the
Nation's commitment to care for its defenders.
``I urge you,'' Commander Heath said to the Speaker, ``to reconsider
the inequitable and ill-advised course proposed in the committee's
partisan budget proposal.''
I believe, Mr. Speaker, the sentiments expressed by the national
commander of the Disabled American Veterans reflects the values of
Americans everywhere.
I understand that in this budget last night or so they made a fig
leaf change so that now they are only cutting veterans' benefits by $28
billion rather than $30 billion. I think Mr. Heath and our veterans all
across this land of ours will recognize that as nothing but a political
fig leaf, and that fig leaf will not work.
We ought to be supporting our veterans and servicemen and women
today, not cutting their benefits in a divisive debate.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to
just briefly respond to the gentleman that just spoke.
In the manager's amendment that we will adopt, when we adopt the rule
in discretionary spending for veterans, we provide a 6.1 percent
increase, which has doubled, as my friend from Mississippi said, the
overall budget. The mandatory spending in the manager's amendment that
we will adopt, that calls for a spending increase of 7.5 percent for
our veterans. So we respond to the needs of those that have made our
country as free as it is.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that every budget
proposal is somewhat partisan, but I hope we would try so that it would
not be that.
I congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). I
think we are moving in the right direction. First let me just briefly,
Mr. Speaker, represent what we have done in terms of veterans'
benefits.
Spending has grown 51.7 percent since our first budget in the
majority for an average growth of 6.1 percent each year. That is almost
three times the rate of inflation representing the dedication,
hopefully of both parties, to take care of our veterans.
Let me now talk about the important issue of what we have been doing
on spending. As my colleagues can see by this chart, discretionary
spending increases have averaged 6.3 percent each year since 1996 and
7.7 percent each year in increased spending since 1998. So we should be
concerned with the dramatic growth in spending.
What has this done to the total debt of this country? We are looking
at the total debt of this country going to $10 trillion in the next 10
years. The question, Mr. Speaker, is how do we control the debt? Do we
increase taxes to control the debt we are leaving to our kids and our
grandkids, or do we do it by cutting back on spending?
This budget that the Republicans are suggesting says let us start
holding the line and slow down the increase on spending, and if anybody
does not believe there is at least 1 percent of fraud and abuse and
waste in government spending, then they are mistaken. As a person that
has worked in the administration, I will guarantee my colleagues we can
save on percent.
Let us move ahead with this Republican budget. The gentleman from
South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget, according to the Committee on the
Budget, increases taxes by $126 to $128 billion. Even the Blue Dog
budget increases taxes by something around $124 billion between 2006
and 2011. So let us not reduce deficits with tax increases, let us do
it with holding a line on spending, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me the time.
We had a well-known Missourian named Mark Twain who once said, ``The
more you explain it to me, the more I don't understand it.''
[[Page H2142]]
A few moments ago my friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Linder)
spoke about this budget taking care of the military. I have the
privilege of serving on the Committee on Armed Services, which is a
hard-working and, I might say, very bipartisan committee, but also I
might point out, Mr. Speaker, we are at war.
Last night were the opening volleys to bring down Saddam Hussein, and
yesterday I appeared before the Committee on Rules to ask for an
amendment to recognize the fact that we would soon be at war and would
soon have expenses for the aftermath in the country of Iraq.
Sadly, the Committee on Rules did not accept my ability to offer an
amendment. I offered an amendment which would establish a $20 billion
reserve fund. This was done back during the initial era of the war on
terrorism, and I chose a modest amount, a $20 billion amount, for this
reserve fund because it was estimated that it would cover a 5-month
occupation and a 1-month conflict. Hopefully, that will be the case. In
all probability, it will be much longer than that.
We have war-related costs, and this budget does not accept the fact
or recognize the fact that we need to pay for this war. We are telling
the American people, should this budget be passed, that there will be
no money, no reserve fund, no dollars, no war-related costs that would
help the troops, the ships, the fliers in working toward a victory. It
would provide no humanitarian assistance for the inevitable flow of
refugees, nothing to establish a transitional government. As a matter
of fact, Mr. Speaker, some analysts believe that the American costs
could exceed $100 billion, and yet my amendment was for a mere $20
billion to recognize reality.
We are in a war. This budget should recognize that. This budget
should have allowed an amendment to be offered in that case. The
Committee on Rules was wrong not to make my amendment in order. I am
saddened by that fact. They failed to include it in this provision, and
consequently, Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleagues in this Chamber to
vote against the resolution.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), a
member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank first the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for leading the
effort, as he has in so many times before, to ensure that the minority
party is well represented in this rules process.
Of the four amendments made in order under this rule, three of them
are Democrat amendments. In fact, each of the Democrat amendments is an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, giving the minority the
opportunity to make wholesale changes to the budget.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and
the entire Committee on the Budget for their tireless efforts to make
tough decisions and put our budget back on the road to surplus. Under
their leadership, the United States will again see surpluses in the
Federal budget.
As we begin the disarmament and liberation of Iraq, this budget
provides a substantial funding increase for the Armed Forces, funding
which will continue to ensure that our brave men and women in uniform
remain the best trained and best equipped in the world.
The President and the Committee on the Budget have also correctly
identified the need to increase funding for homeland security,
including funding for the Nation's first responders. The budget will
work to ensure the safety of Americans at home and abroad.
If the budget is accepted today by the House, and I hope it will, we
will also send a message to the American people that we are tired of
government waste and abuse by requiring Federal dollars be used in the
most efficient way to bring safety to the Nation and to perform the
government's responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good budget, and it is a fair rule, a very
fair rule in fact. I ask my colleagues to support both the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the Record. It was said
here that we raise taxes in our budget proposal. The truth of the
matter is we open the proposal to reduce taxes to give hard-working
Americans a tax rebate of about $60 billion. This time it will go to
the millions who did not get it the last time and who are likely to
spend it and give this economy a boost.
We also provide for expensing of purchases made by small businesses
in the year of purchase, and we provide a 50 percent bonus to larger
firms. Corporations who make investments in plant equipment this year,
50 percent of it can be written off. That is in our bill.
Furthermore, we take, instead of repealing the estate tax in 2011, we
provide for the Pomeroy estate tax provision, which gives Americans
immediate estate tax relief. That is a $33 billion reduction, too.
The only thing we do is freeze the top two brackets, the very highest
top brackets. We do not raise them. We simply freeze them in place.
They can get the cuts they have gotten today, but until we get the
budget back in balance, we would suspend those, but the tax effects, at
best, are a wash. We are not raising taxes in our budget resolution.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining
on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings) has 11 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has
12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would observe it looks
like my friend from Texas has more requests for time than I have. So I
will reserve my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, in 2001 I was 1 of only 28 Democrats to support the
President's tax cuts, 1 of 9 to support his economic stimulus package.
I will continue to support tax cuts that truly stimulate our economy
and spur investment, but I believe that the Republican budget before us
today and the sweeping magnitude and breadth and depth of tax cuts to
the most affluent at the cost of the most urgent national needs is
irresponsible.
The Republican plan allows U.S. troops to go into a war today and
then slashes their veterans' benefits by billions when they return
tomorrow because their budget needs those billions from veterans to
fund a $90,000 tax cut per millionaire.
Mr. Speaker, I represent some affluent areas. I represent people who
are millionaires. They are good, hard-working people, but I cannot
imagine a single one of them coming up to me and saying, give me my
$90,000 tax cut today, and I do not care about those soldiers who are
fighting for my freedoms and safety in Iraq.
{time} 1315
I do not care if they have to go without their veterans benefits
tomorrow; I want mine now.
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what this budget does. This budget
could eliminate enrollment for 158,000 veterans, necessitate 400,000
fewer hospital-bed days, reduce the number of nurses by 8,700. For
veterans, it means longer waits and higher premiums.
The alternative is the moderate Blue Dog budget. It repeals the
marriage penalty. It makes estate tax relief immediate and permanent.
It accelerates middle-class and small business tax cuts, but it
provides for our local first responders. It offers seniors an initial
prescription drug benefit. It stays within the President's own
discretionary spending levels. It achieves $2 trillion less debt than
the President's plan over 10 years. What it asks is that those who are
at the highest tax bracket simply postpone their tax cuts until the war
is paid for, until our veterans benefits are secured, until this budget
is back on the path towards balance.
Mr. Speaker, for our national security today, for our homeland
security today, for our veterans' health and economic security
tomorrow, let us pass the moderate Blue Dog budget. Let us not balance
this budget on the backs of people fighting on desert fronts.
[[Page H2143]]
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listen to my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle, and I am amazed at some of the things that they have said
today. The gentleman from Mississippi blamed the entire deficit in this
budget on September 11. There is no truth in that. The fact of the
matter is, if it was not for the tax cut that the Republicans put in
place in the last session of Congress, there would not be a deficit.
The deficit is being created primarily because of the constant effort
on their part to put in place tax cuts that primarily benefit the very
wealthy and special corporate interests. Then I heard the gentleman
from Florida say the budget puts us back on the road to surplus. They
are creating a deficit, and they are saying they are creating a
surplus. There is purposeful activity in creating the deficit by the
kinds of tax cuts they put in place and the way they frame this budget.
They are taking a situation where a few years ago we had a surplus
that was done on a bipartisan basis under President Clinton with a
Republican House and a Democratic Senate; but nonetheless, it was done
because we felt we had to balance the budget. Now the opposite is
happening. They are creating a huge deficit.
Then another Member on the other side of the aisle said we have to
have these tax cuts because we do not want to put all of the burden on
the taxpayers. What about our children, grandchildren, and future
generations? What about the fact that we are borrowing this money to
pay for the deficit from Social Security and Medicare, and that these
programs are going to run dry in the future when our children and
grandchildren have to deal with the problem? That is the most
irresponsible thing I have ever seen.
This is a radical proposal by the Republican leadership here. This is
not common sense. This is the most radical budget that I have ever seen
in the 15 years that I have been here. They are basically shifting the
burden. They are shifting the burden to future generations. It should
not be allowed. They should say what they are doing, and they are not.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I have to
say, I am appalled that we even have this bill on the floor today. We
are now in the first 24 hours of a war against Iraq, and I think that
Congress should present a unified front supporting our men and women in
harm's way.
But no, the Republicans decide this is a great time to slip through a
budget while people are watching the Iraq situation and may not pay
attention to the big tax cuts for the very wealthy, may not pay
attention to the cuts in education, veterans benefits, and in other
critical domestic programs. Well, if they want to have this bruising
and controversial debate, let us have at it.
First of all, this budget is designed to protect a $396 billion
corporate dividend tax cut that benefits the wealthy. Let us look at
the State of Maryland. The average 1 percent of earners in Maryland
would get a tax break of $30,000; 24 percent of couples would get zero.
And 43 percent of couples and singles would receive less than $100 from
this tax break. So when the other side says it is a big tax break for
the American people, no. It is a big tax break for the very wealthy.
In order to give the wealthy this tax break, what we find out is they
cut critical programs. They have cut veterans programs by $15 billion.
That is kind of ironic when we are at war. We are sending men and women
into war, and they are cutting benefits to the veterans who have
already made that sacrifice. What do they cut? They cut compensation
for service-oriented disabilities. They cut burial benefits, Montgomery
GI bill benefits, and rehabilitation benefits.
The Democratic budget, on the other hand, provides $16 billion more
than the Republicans for our veterans. Do not let them wave the flag
unless they are willing to put some money there. Do not just believe
me, believe the veterans organizations. The Disabled American Veterans,
the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the American Legion have all
issued statements opposing the Republican budget.
Then they give us a prescription drug plan on the cheap so they can
give a big tax cut to the wealthy. They give $400 billion for
prescription drugs. We give $528 billion. We keep seniors in Medicare;
they say they have to go to an HMO.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are united in our prayers for the
success and safety of our men and women in combat. The powers that be
have brought to this floor a highly divisive budget resolution. This
budget resolution is designed to enrich the rich at the expense of
economic growth for all America. It means larger budget deficits,
higher interest rates, larger trade deficits. It will take capital out
of the private sector and away from business investments while
underinvesting in education and infrastructure.
But I rise to address another point, another flaw in this budget
resolution; and I will do so with an analogy to a credit card
advertisement that we are all familiar with.
Allowing corporations to get out of paying American taxes just by
renting a hotel room in the Bahamas, $4 billion; ending taxes on all
dividends, $385 billion; ending the estate tax even on the largest
estates, $662 billion; knowing Members can pass the entire cost of all
of this to future generations, priceless. RepubliCard, it is everything
the super rich want it to be.
Also available, the new Deficit Express Card soon with a $4.2
trillion credit limit. The Deficit Express Card, do not leave the House
without it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition
to the House Republican budget resolution. I believe our national
budget should be a statement of our country's values. It should reflect
the priorities of the American people for good jobs, safe communities,
quality education, and access to health care.
Unfortunately, the Republican budget fails to fund these national
priorities. The Republican budget has only one clear priority, to fund
the President's $1.6 trillion tax cut. The Republicans fund this tax
cut at the expense of the social and economic interests of the American
people. Republicans are offering us a budget today that cuts funding
for every single domestic priority in order to fund a $1.6 trillion tax
cut that will only help a small percentage of Americans. These tax cuts
are even more inappropriate when we consider the fact that our country
is engaged in a war that will strain our already weakened financial
resources.
Democrats, on the other hand, will be offering a variety of
alternative budgets today that reflect the priorities of the American
people. We will push for tax provisions that will help the backbone of
our economy, small businesses and working families, while providing the
necessary resources for quality health care and education for all
Americans.
While I do not fully endorse all of the Democratic alternatives, each
is far better than the Republican budget resolution. So today Democrats
step up to the plate with superior alternatives while Republicans offer
a Bush-league budget.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republicans have chosen the
interest of the elite few over the needs of the many. It is clear where
their priorities lie. I urge Members to align their priorities with
those of the American people and vote for the Democratic budget
resolution.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are ready to proceed to consideration of this rule.
The rule lays out three different Democratic alternatives.
Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules chose not to make in order some
very important amendments, specifically the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). We all support the troops. It is
time for us to put our money where our mouth is. Unfortunately, this
budget resolution does not provide any money for the ongoing war in
Iraq. The Skelton amendment should have been made in order. It is
regrettable the other side of the aisle did not give the House the
opportunity to do what we all should be doing today.
[[Page H2144]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1330
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and of
the budget which will come forward from the Committee on the Budget.
This is a wartime budget. Our Nation has been at war since September 11
of 2001. President Bush has made that very clear. And then, of course,
last night that war expanded to our challenge of taking on Saddam
Hussein.
This rule is a very fair and balanced rule. I see having just walked
into the Chamber my good friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm). His substitute will be made in order. We will have a
substitute for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the
Republican Study Committee. We will have the Progressive Caucus
substitute that will be made in order. We will, of course, have the
gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) substitute.
I will say to my friends that not since 1987, that is 16 years ago,
have we seen the Committee on Rules under either Republicans or
Democrats make in order a provision which allowed for anything other
than a complete substitute. And so the rule that we are going to be
voting on in just a few minutes follows that 16-year tradition again
under both Democrats and Republicans.
Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the concept of the Skelton
amendment. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, is one of the most
respected Members of this House, and I believe very strongly in what it
is that he wants to do here.
We know that once we get this budget behind us, we are going to be
dealing with a supplemental appropriations bill. It is no secret at
all. It has been talked about as a measure which will range somewhere
between 80- and $100 billion. We know that it will take a great deal of
resources to win this war and obviously to rebuild Iraq. It is our hope
that we will be able to see a lot of help in that effort, not just from
the U.S. taxpayer.
We know that there are tremendous oil resources in Iraq. We also know
that the multinational coalition that is now supportive of the
President is even larger than the 28-nation coalition that existed
under President Bush No. 41 to liberate the people of Kuwait 12 years
ago. And so as we see this coalition build to 35, 40 more nations, it
is our hope that those nations will join in the rebuilding effort of
Iraq.
That is why I believe that the message behind the gentleman from
Missouri's very thoughtful amendment, while not made in order under
this measure because we make substitute budgets in order, is a message
which is important, it has resonated, and I strongly support the idea
behind it. I can assure him that we will address this issue.
As we look, Mr. Speaker, at the budget itself, there are so many
things that have been said, I do not have any charts showing credit
cards or anything like that, but I will say that this is a budget that
is focused on the situation that really created the economic challenge
that we face over and above the war on terrorism and now our going to
war with Saddam Hussein, and that happens to be the issue of economic
growth.
The economic downturn began in the last two quarters of the year
2000. I will say that again, Mr. Speaker. The economic downturn began
in the last two quarters of the year 2000, before the last Presidential
election. Since that time we have been able to put into place President
Bush's tax bill. That reduction in the tax burden dealing with issues
like encouraging investment, the marriage tax penalty, those sorts of
issues, based on the assessment of virtually every economist, mitigated
the downturn that we have seen in the economy, meaning that without
President Bush's tax plan, the tax reduction measure, the economic
downturn would have been much worse than what we have gone through.
We went through two quarters of negative economic growth, meaning an
economic recession last year, in 2001, and since that time we have seen
growth that is not nearly what it should be. We enjoyed tremendous
economic growth following the implementation of our tax measures in the
mid to late 1990s, and I am happy to say that we have an opportunity to
lay the groundwork for that to happen again. That is why the provision
that is provided for in this budget for $724 billion of tax reductions
is a provision which will encourage economic growth.
Why is it that we are going into deficit spending? Well, yes, we have
had to increase the spending on the war. Since September 11 we have had
to expend over $100 billion in the war on terrorism alone. But the fact
of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we have this challenge because of
economic growth which is not strong enough. Anyone who looks at what it
will take to get us growing the economy again realizes that you do not
increase taxes at a time of an economic slowdown; what you do is you
cut taxes.
I hope very much that we will be able to maintain and have intact the
President's economic growth package, but I have a proposal which I hope
we can include with that, and this budget makes provisions for that,
which will make the President's package even better. It is a provision
which would cut the top rate on capital gains from 20 percent down to
10 percent prospectively, meaning for new investment. It would say, Mr.
Speaker, to people who are considering investing today, who may be
waiting on the sidelines, that they would have an opportunity when the
new investment that they would embark upon appreciates of having a rate
that is cut from 20 percent down to 10 percent, from 35 percent to 20
percent for corporations. That kind of incentive for new investment is
just what we need. That is the kind of tax reduction which will provide
an important stimulant to the economy.
As we look at the overall quest to ensure that we have funding for a
wide range of priorities, including education, including veterans, I
have heard people talk about so many of these cuts that we are facing
that are going to hurt working Americans and those who are at the lower
end of the economic spectrum, and it is just not true.
We are focusing with a provision that we have in this rule on the
issue of Medicare. I feel very strongly about the need to address a
concern that I have in my State for the reimbursement to hospitals for
the disproportionate share on Medicaid funding for the tremendous
burden that they have carried. It is my hope that within the guidelines
of this budget that we will be able to address those very important
priorities that are out there.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair rule. I want to praise my colleague
from Washington State (Mr. Hastings). He has worked day and night on
the Committee on Rules. We worked until late last night fashioning this
rule, and just the other night he was not able to be in the Committee
on Rules because he was working until 1:30 in the morning on this
budget in the Committee on the Budget. He is our representative from
the Committee on Rules to the Committee on the Budget. He has done a
great job in working on the budget, establishing our priorities,
recognizing that this is a wartime budget, and at the same time moving
us on the road towards economic growth and fiscal responsibility. He
has also done a good job in fashioning, putting together and supporting
and managing this rule.
Mr. Speaker, it is a rule which allows, as the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost) correctly said, for three options from Democrats to be
considered, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the Black
Caucus/Progressive Caucus substitute, and the so-called Blue Dog
package that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has brought
forward. I think it is the right thing for us to do, to have a full
airing. We are going to do that.
This is one of the most solemn days in our Nation's history as we
have begun this war, but at the same time no better signal could be
sent to the rest of the world that the United States of America stands
strong and ready and determined to continue with
[[Page H2145]]
the greatest experiment in individual liberty known to man, that being
the United States of America.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the
kind words that he gave me.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________