[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.

                          ____________________