[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 1, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H2542-H2553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H. CON. RES. 95, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95)
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government
for the fiscal year 2004, and setting forth appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013, with the Senate
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to a
conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
Motion To Instruct Offered By Mr. Spratt
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Spratt moves that within the scope of the conference
(1) the managers on the part of the House at the conference
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate
amendment to the concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 95 be
instructed to eliminate the reconciliation instruction to the
Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, and the Committee on Ways and Means
contained in section 201(b) of the House resolution; that (2)
such managers be instructed to recede to the Senate on
section 319 (entitled ``Reserve Fund to Strengthen Social
Security'') of the Senate amendment; and that (3) such
managers be instructed to adjust the revenue levels by the
amounts needed to offset the cost of the instructions set
forth in paragraphs (1) and (2), without resulting in any
increase in the deficit or reduction in surplus for any
fiscal year covered by the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle)
each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, but for one vote, the budget resolution that we now seem
to send to conference would have gone down. Fortunately, there is still
a way out for this budget with its massive deficits and its misguided
priorities: we can rewrite it in conference. If we cut through all the
words, all the legislative language and the motion that was just read,
that is what the motion to instruct calls for.
Now, we do not cover the waterfront and take out every change that we
find objectionable and make every change that we feel needs to be made,
but we do send the conferees a strong message, and that is to get rid
of the worst of the entitlement reconciliation directives in this
budget resolution.
First of all, Medicare. Originally, our Republican colleagues on the
Committee on the Budget sought to cut Medicare by $262 billion and
Medicaid by $110 billion. That was to offset the cost of their
prescription drug benefit under Medicare. We tried to knock out these
cuts in markup, but failed. The chairman, however, did change his mark
twice. After these modifications were made, however, the Committee on
Ways and Means is still directed to cut $62 billion out of entitlement
programs in its jurisdiction. This sort of saving can only come from
two sources under the Committee on Ways and Means jurisdiction:
Medicare or programs for the poor, the earned income tax credit,
temporary assistance to needy families, or supplemental security
income. It will have to come out of these programs, $62 billion; and
these could be critical cuts in critically important programs.
The chairman's amendment, the manager's amendment also shaved the
reconciliation directions just slightly to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce from $110 billion to $107 billion.
{time} 1415
But of this amount, $94 billion must still come from Medicaid, or
SCHIP, the children's health insurance program. Contrast that, Mr.
Speaker, to what we do in our budget resolution, or would have done had
it passed. Given the struggle that all the States are having with
Medicaid, we sought to increase the Federal share and lighten the
States' burden by adding $10 billion at the Federal level to the cost
of Medicaid this year.
If the rule had allowed during consideration of the budget, we would
have offered amendments when the budget was on the floor to strike all
of these cuts. Since everyone knows that they would have emasculated
Medicare and Medicaid, I think they would have passed; but we were not
allowed to make such an amendment.
Next, veterans. Originally, the Republicans on the Committee on the
Budget set out to cut $30 billion from the budget for the veterans.
They say that veterans benefits actually increase in their budget, and
they may in nominal dollars. But this is the fact of the matter: Their
budget resolution, as brought to the floor, provided $15 billion less
for veterans health care than the President requested, and it still
provides less for veterans disability benefits.
Next, education. The Republican resolution not only cuts
appropriations for education below the President's already-low level,
it saves none of the 47 programs that the President wiped out or would
kill. It goes a step further: It whacks $9.4 billion out of mandatory
spending. What does the Committee on Education and the Workforce have
in its jurisdiction? Student loans and school lunches. Do we really
want to cut student loans and school lunches to pay for a dividend tax
exclusion?
Next, railroad retirees. Looking everywhere for programs they could
cut to offset a big tax cut of another $1.35 trillion, our colleagues
on the Committee on the Budget even called on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure to come up with some reconciliation
savings, namely, $3.7 billion out of its mandatory or entitlement
programs.
The only source that can produce such a cut under the jurisdiction of
that committee is railroad retirement, a vested benefit on which
700,000 retirees depend. Surely we are not going to cut $3.7 billion
out of that.
Finally, in the same vein, is agriculture. The budget, as it now
stands, requires the Committee on Agriculture to cut $18.6 billion of
direct spending over the next 10 years, but as in all of the other
cases, it fails to mention which programs and fails to say how much.
Where does the Committee on Agriculture go? It can turn to the
conservation reserve program, $18.6 billion, roughly what it costs to
run that program for 10 years; or the Committee on Agriculture could
turn to food stamps and take 12 percent out of food stamps for the next
10 years to produce $18.6 billion. But do we want to take 34 million
acres of environmentally sensitive
[[Page H2543]]
land out of reserves? Do we want to cut food stamps when unemployment
is 6 percent nationwide, in double digits in places like my district?
These are a few of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we should tell the
conferees and tell them emphatically to recede to the Senate and drop
these reconciliation directives. They should not be in here. First of
all, these cuts are not in the President's budget, they are not in the
Senate's budget, and except for the House budget, they are not on
anybody's agenda.
Second, they are wrapped up in ambiguity, written in language so
evasive that no one can know where the cuts may fall. They were clouded
further by colloquies here on the House floor when we had the budget on
the floor, in which the chairman of the committee, the Committee on the
Budget, assured chairman after chairman of committees of jurisdiction
that, no, they would not have to do what the black letter provisions of
this resolution plainly say they must do, and that is cut Medicare, cut
Medicaid and cut veterans benefits.
All, in effect, that this motion does is say to the conferees,
conform the budget resolution to legislative history as recorded right
here on the House floor the night we had the budget up.
Finally, these cuts, Mr. Speaker, would be questionable at any time,
but cutting veterans when we are at war and Medicaid when the States
are struggling just to sustain it and student loans for no good reason
it is just wrong, callous and wrong.
In the end, I will be frank to say that I do not think most of these
cuts will ever come to pass, not this year, anyway. But another huge
tax cut may be passed. Its impact on the deficit may be obscured by
pretending that these spending cuts will be enacted later as offsets.
Most of these cuts may not be enacted later for the same political
reasons, but as deficits swell, as they surely will if these tax cuts
proposed are passed, the cuts will come in time, and this budget
resolution is our forewarning of where they will have to fall.
We can ask fairly, what would happen to the budget's bottom line if
these spending cuts we are calling for deletion are not enacted? The
answer is that these proposed spending cuts are made necessary by the
proposed tax cuts. If we forgo the tax cuts, we can forgo the deep cuts
in Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, student loans, agriculture,
and railroad retirees.
As for the bottom line, if we just leave spending and revenues at
current service levels, the Congressional Budget Office tells us the
budget will be in balance by the year 2008. That is 4 years sooner and
a couple of trillion less debt than this resolution promises. So if
Members are for a budget that balances priorities as well as the bottom
line, they should vote for this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, here we are again. We are on the floor discussing the
fact that the Federal Government does not have even one penny of waste.
Do Members believe that? It is hard to believe that somebody would come
to the floor of the House, or that an entire party would come to the
floor of the House today and suggest that the United States Government
does not have any waste.
I will admit, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) very
eloquently stated, that there is no way, as we go to the conference
between the House and Senate over the budget, that possibly the House-
passed numbers of savings might be difficult to attain, and certainly
might be difficult to reach a negotiation between the House and Senate.
But they come to the floor today and basically say that we are going
to eliminate the instructions in order to get waste and abuse in this
government, and that none of the instructions, not one of the years
over the next 10 years can we even find a penny.
Is it going to be hard to find the $300 billion? Okay, let us suggest
it is. We made an attempt on our side in good faith to try and look at
our programs called entitlements, which are nothing more than automatic
spending, which has now basically engulfed the budget to the tune of
about 60 percent of all our expenditures are automatic. We have nothing
to say about them. We get sent to Washington to make judgments and
choices, and those choices were made before us, a long time before us,
in many instances.
As we do research on those programs, as we look and examine the
programs, where we find challenges, where we find waste, where we find
abuse, where we find problems, we even hire an agency called the
General Accounting Office to do reports for us, and when we find those,
we are not to challenge ourselves to reform those programs. We are not
to challenge ourselves to find savings in those programs. We are not to
challenge ourselves to look in every nook and cranny of the budget, or
every nook and cranny of the Federal Government in order, at a time of
challenge for our country, to find savings, so we can save taxpayers a
little bit of money.
I do not know about the Members, but I just had to send in my taxes.
That is not a fun experience for me, and I am sure it is not for any of
my colleagues. I guarantee, Members, it is not for my friends back home
in Iowa as they go visit the tax people.
So looking for a little bit of savings, looking for a little bit of
waste and fraud and abuse, I thought would be a pretty worthy endeavor.
We even put into our budget a couple of different items that we found
kind of interesting.
We said that the Inspector General for the Department of Education
has found that nearly 23 percent of the recipients whose loans were
discharged due to disability claims were gainfully employed. Now, think
about this a second. What the Democrats are coming here today and
saying is, we cannot find any waste. But the Inspector General who
works for the Department of Education has found 23 percent of the
claims for disability benefits for education were actually employed, 23
percent.
Can we do anything about that? No, we cannot do anything about that.
Heaven forbid we challenge the Committee on Education and the Workforce
to go looking for that, so let us eliminate that instruction. Not the
amount in the budget, not even a penny, we cannot even find a penny of
waste in the Education Department is what the Democrats are saying.
Based on the data provided by the Office of Management and Budget,
the Committee on the Budget estimates more than $8 billion in erroneous
earned income tax payments are made every year, $8 billion of checks
that go out to recipients in the United States, $8 billion.
Can we do anything about that? No, no, we cannot do anything about
that. We do not want to challenge that. That is going to be real heavy
lifting; we cannot do anything about that.
The Office of Management and Budget estimates there are erroneous
payments for food stamps that account for almost 9 percent, 9 percent.
With almost one out of every 10 people who get food stamps, something
was erroneous about those accounts and those benefits. Can we challenge
the Committee on Agriculture to go look at that? No, we cannot do that.
Heaven forbid we will come down to the floor and scream that it is
going to farmers, when we know full well that it is not.
We put in here that mismanagement of almost more than $3 billion in
trust funds controlled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs led the Congress
to take extraordinary measures to regain control of the funds because
$3 billion were being mismanaged.
Can we find that? No, do not look there. There is no waste over
there. Do not look over there. We cannot find any waste over there, not
this year, not next year, not for the next 10 years, no waste.
There is no waste in Washington, that is what the Democrats are
coming to the floor today to tell us. We cannot do any of that, too
heavy. That is too heavy lifting.
Inspector General, Personnel Management, has documented numerous
instances of the government continuing to make electronic payments for
retirement benefits for the Civil Service Retirement system after the
person died, meaning that people who work for our Federal Government,
we give them a pension, and after they die, we care so much about the
work they did for the United States Government we keep paying them.
[[Page H2544]]
But can we ask anybody to go look for that? No, we cannot do that.
The motion to instruct says no, we are not going to do that. There is
no waste in Washington. That is what the Democrats say, no waste in
Washington. Eliminate that instruction. That is too hard. In fact, if
it really gets hard, we will come down here and tell people that we are
throwing seniors out of nursing homes, or that we are eliminating
Medicare benefits, or that we are going to do a disservice to veterans.
In fact, we do such a service to veterans that last year 5,500
veterans received benefits from the Veterans Administration after they
died. But can we go to the Veterans Administration? No, we cannot touch
them. We do not want to do anything in that department. That is too
heavy, that is too hard. Let us just keep paying them, because it is
easier to send out the press release today saying, I supported the
veterans, or I supported Medicare, or I supported Medicaid, or I
supported farmers.
I do not think Members are supporting veterans when they pay them
when they die. That does not make much sense. Pay them when they are
alive, pay them for their service; there is not anybody who disagrees
with that. We all agree with that. But to say there is not at least
even a penny of savings over the next 10 years, I would like Members to
go home and explain that to Members' constituents in a town meeting. I
want Members to explain that they do not believe there is any waste in
Washington, no waste at all in Washington.
What we are asking our committees to do is to go look for it and go
find it. Is that going to be hard to do? Sure. Some of these are very
politically sensitive areas, very politically sensitive, which is why
today, for political intrigue and fodder, the Democrats rushed to the
floor saying, we are supporting all of these constituent groups, and we
are supporting them so much we will support them when there is
mismanagement, when there is waste, when there is fraud within the
system. We are not willing to challenge our committees to go and get
that job done.
The second thing they say is that, what we are going to do about this
is we are going to trim back the tax cut. The tax relief in the House-
passed budget estimates it will create about 1.4 million jobs. How many
jobs do Members want to create? Obviously, not 1.4 million. About half
that? It is 1.4 million jobs. Why is it that they want to eliminate the
opportunities under this growth package?
{time} 1430
And what is more important, going to your second point here about the
Social Security trust fund, is that the best way to create money in the
Social Security trust fund is to create workers. That is who pays the
bills, who pays the Social Security money in the first place, the
people who are working. The more people you create, the more jobs you
create, the more people you have working, the more money that goes into
the trust fund. And so by eliminating jobs by suggesting that you do
not want to create these jobs at a time when our economy is struggling
does the biggest disservice to the Social Security trust fund.
So I would rather you come here today and basically say that the
General Accounting Office, which does all of these reports on the
defense, food stamps, here is one on debt collection, here is one on
the Defense Department again, public housing, here is a good one on the
post office, Federal loans, defense again, foreign assistance, we have
got travel cards in the Defense Department and across the country or
across the government that are being abused. You do not want to do
anything about that. You do not want to do anything about waste, fraud
and abuse. That is what we are asking for. And so you come down here
today, and you want to basically tie the hands of the conferees and say
you do not want to instruct any of the committees to do this job.
Well, we reject that. We are not going to get, we know, all of the
waste, fraud and abuse in the first budget, maybe not in the second
budget. We may not get much at all, but you have got to start
somewhere. And to suggest there is not even a penny, to basically say
eliminate it all, eliminate any attempt to go find wasteful Washington
spending, to me I think is a disservice. And so even though this is a
nonbinding motion to instruct conferees and certainly the minority has
an opportunity to come down here and make this motion, it really shows
your cards.
It shows that you do not really have a concern about some of these
programs and their usefulness, finding the waste and the fraud and
abuse within our Federal Government. That is what it shows to me, and I
think it shows that to the American people. There is not a person in
America that does not believe there is waste in Washington. There is
not a person, certainly not a person I have ever run into. I hope if
there is somebody, you would let me know because I have not met one yet
who does not think there is some waste in Washington.
But your motion to instruct conferees says no there is no waste in
Washington. We do not have to do our work. Let us just keep this
automatic spending going right on automatically down the line. Let us
not worry about it at all. Let us not create those jobs. Let us back
down the tax relief. Let us not create taxpayers so we can replenish
the Social Security trust fund. Let us not do that, and let us continue
on business as usual in Washington.
Well, we do not want to do that. We want to make sure that the
conferees, I hope to be one of them, of course, continues to work for
waste, fraud and abuse; and that is why we are going to continue that
job even in the face of the Democrats coming here today suggesting that
there is no waste in Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I believe the
gentleman has quite a bit of time remaining on his side for debate.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
and I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the
ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we are as concerned as any Member of this
Congress about squeezing out waste, fraud and abuse. But we sincerely
doubt that you can squeeze, ferret out $265 billion in waste, fraud and
abuse. If you can, I would say to my colleague, where has the
Republican majority been for the last 8 years during which you have
controlled the House. Instead of having oversight, we have had
overlook, if there is that much waste being accumulated in the Federal
operation at this time.
Here are the cuts that are entailed by this resolution as it goes to
conference: Agriculture, $18 billion. Waste, fraud and abuse, where is
it? Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, 107; most of that
is Medicaid. Medicare, $62 billion. The total amount, $265 billion.
If you required these reconciliation savings to be accomplished and
laid on the table before you passed your budget resolution, before you
passed your tax cuts, they would have more credibility. But they lack
credibility with me because if you are going to go ahead and have the
tax cuts premised on adopting all of these $265 billion in savings just
a few months afterwards, I do not think they will ever come to pass.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there is not anybody in here who is not
against waste, fraud and abuse. Ronald Reagan ran in 1980, and he said
he was going to save a lot of money by eliminating waste, fraud and
abuse. The Republicans were in charge of the Senate. Ronald Reagan was
President of the United States. Not once, not ever did Ronald Reagan
have a veto of any appropriation bill overridden, not once that asked
to spend more money.
He was in charge of the executive department. George Bush was in
charge of the executive department for the 4 years following, for 12
years in a row. And, Mr. Nussle, you know what happened to waste, fraud
and abuse? You quadrupled the national debt, I say to my friend who is
trying to ignore me. You quadrupled the national debt from $985 billion
to $4 trillion. Why did Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush not eliminate waste,
fraud and abuse?
And then what happened? Bill Clinton came to town, elected President
of
[[Page H2545]]
the United States, and what happened in those 8 years? For 8 years in a
row the deficit came down, for 4 years; and then the surplus started
going up until 2001. We had 4 years of surpluses for the first time in
80 years. And then what happened? President Bush came to office. Mr.
Nussle became the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and we have
reescalated the debt.
This budget proposes the largest debt in the history of this country.
This budget is an April fool, a cruel hoax and joke on the American
public. And what does the chairman of the Committee on the Budget do?
He brings these little blue books. They are important books. The
question I wanted to ask you, Mr. Nussle, and just an answer, is I am
sure your committee staff has added up how would the savings if every
piece of waste in those blue books was effected would it provide us.
How much, Mr. Nussle?
Would it provide the 18 billion you want to take away from farmers
who are attacked by drought? Would it take away the money that you are
going to reduce school lunches by? Student loans by? Would it provide
for the Medicaid that you want the Committee on Energy and Commerce to
cut? Would it provide for the Medicare that your own committee has
jurisdiction over?
Now, Mr. Nussle, it is April Fool's Day but do not take us for fools,
because with all due respect, you offered a budget last year. Now you
complained it did not pass, but in years past we have deemed adopted
the House-passed budget and passed bills.
Again, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget ignores me. It is
a shame because, my friends, 11 of the appropriations bills did not
pass this House last year. Why? Because they could not get them within
the budget. The budget that Mr. Nussle offered is not a real document.
It is an April fool's joke. It will never be adopted. Never. And, Mr.
Nussle, I believe you know it. I believe you know that the document
that you have provided is unsustainable politically because the
American public will reject it out of hand because they do not believe
that that railroad retirement and people who work hard for their
retirement should be cut. They do not believe that Social Security
should be cut. They do not believe that Medicaid should be cut. They do
not believe that Medicare should be cut.
The motion to instruct will make it a real budget and turn an April
fool's joke into a real document for America.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed fitting that on this, April Fool's Day,
we're voting on this motion to instruct on the House GOP's phony and
foolhardy budget.
Why?
Because the fact of the matter is: This GOP budget is a dishonest
document designed solely to fool the American people.
To fool them into believing that this Republican Party really does
care about balancing the budget, controlling deficits and reducing
debt.
To fool them into believing that our nation--which is now prosecuting
a war of unknown duration and undetermined costs--really can afford the
President's $1.4 trillion tax plan.
And, to fool them into believing that the Members who sit on the
Republican side of the aisle really have the courage of their
convictions.
Let me ask you: will you really vote to cut Medicaid funding and the
Children's Health Insurance Program by $94 billion?
Will you really vote to cut school lunches for poor children and
student loans by $9.4 billion?
Will you really vote to cut railroad retirees' pensions and
Agriculture programs such as Food Stamps and Farm Support Payments?
And, with our brave armed forces now on the field of battle risking
their lives to defend freedom and combat tyranny, will you really vote
to cut veterans' benefits by $14.6 billion?
Some of you actually might.
But we all know that most of you have absolutely no intention of
walking the plank and voting for legislation that would implement these
draconian funding cuts.
Thus, today, we're engaged in nothing more than a cynical charade.
You get to pretend that you're for balanced budgets and enormous tax
cuts, too.
That's not leadership. That's a conscious evasion of the
responsibility to level with the American people--to tell them that we
cannot afford everything--and a deliberate decision to pass the costs
of this reckless tax plan onto the next generation.
I urge all of my colleagues--including those on the Republican side
of the aisle who are still nursing sore arms after the vote on the
budget resolution two weeks ago--to vote for the Spratt motion to
instruct.
That motion--which instructs conferees to reject these proposed and
clearly unpassable and untenable funding cuts--is an honest one and
based in reality.
Everyone of us knows that this GOP budget is not.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I was watching this debate, and I was very intrigued by
the Democrat's motion to instruct. And as I look at this motion to
instruct and I want to yield to the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to answer, if he sees this as what I see this. This looks like
to me that the Democrats are suggesting that we have attacked an
economic growth package that sets out a number of about $514 billion.
Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is
correct. If you take the tax number in the bill in the resolution at
726 and what the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) motion to
instruct conferees backs out, which is $212 billion of what they say,
you know, there is no waste in Washington, yes, you would arrive at a
tax number of about $514 billion.
Mr. DeLAY. So from what the chairman is saying, Mr. Speaker, is that
the Democrats of this House are suggesting that the tax number be $514
billion. I might be able to take that, Mr. Chairman. I am a little
concerned that in the motion to instruct to continue spending, and I
know that the minority loves to spend and they want to continue to
spend; and we tried to as we pointed out in the House budget, that it
was important not only to get the economy going again but also to show
some fiscal restraint in the way the Federal Government spends money
around here, and we wanted to go after waste, fraud and abuse and
efficiencies and reforms, not cutting programs, but trying to squeeze
out, out of this bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. the kind of savings we
could find, anywhere we could find them, so that we could show some
spending restraint and at the same time have an economic growth
package.
So if the minority is suggesting that we go to conference and we go
to conference with a number that seems to me to be a floor on the tax
bill of $514 billion, having faced in conference that the House has a
number of 726 and the Senate has a number of 350 billion, I might take
that. I might take that right now. I think we could do some really good
stimulative effect with $514 billion. We could go in there and make
sure that the accelerated experiencing for small business people to be
able to go out and buy equipment and start people making equipment
would be there. We might be able to do something on capital gains. We
all know through history that lowering capital gains rates always
stimulates the economy and provides for long-term growth. And frankly,
at 514 billion we could probably fool around a little bit with the
double taxation dividends and even get something like that in there.
So I just might vote for this. I am going to look at it a little
closer, but I just might vote for this motion to instruct because I for
the first time am noticing that the Democrats are suggesting that we
have a $514 billion tax relief package, and I think we could do a lot
with that.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I understand what you
are saying because I certainly want to defend the budget that I helped
pass. While this technically is a nonbinding motion, I want to
understand what we are suggesting here.
The Democrats are coming here and basically suggesting that even
though we do not want to reduce the tax number, that they would be
willing to go to $514 billion. I do not like that number. I would
rather stay at 726. I met very briefly with the chairman of the Senate
budget committee today, and I told him that is what I am still
interested in doing. But if we can get some agreement here, if the
Democrats are willing
[[Page H2546]]
to come to the floor today and support a number in the tax bill of $514
billion, at least that would be a more positive signal than what came
out of the Senate.
So I still believe there is waste in Washington. I hate the first
instruction in here that says that over the next 10 years we cannot
even find a penny of waste, is what the Democrats said, not a penny.
Nowhere is there waste in Washington. I hate that instruction. Of all
of the instructions, that is the one that probably turns my stomach
more than any of them. But if the majority leader is interested in
this, I certainly would be willing to consider agreeing to the motion
and urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to agree to a
number of about $514 billion.
Certainly at a time when Americans across the country are looking to
get back to work and we are looking to try and create jobs, a tax
number of $514 billion is certainly, probably a good day's work. So I
appreciate the gentleman analyzing the amendment and coming to that
very interesting conclusion.
You know what will be interesting now, to see whether or not the
Democrats even support their own motion.
{time} 1445
I have a suspicion that the Democrats do not even support $514
billion.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, obviously we are going to
have to give them the opportunity to express themselves, but the
chairman knows that I want to restrain spending, too, and I want to
find that waste, fraud and abuse myself. Just because we have a motion
to instruct that says we want to do that does not mean the chairman has
to negotiate that way on that particular portion.
But to have the Democrats support a $514 billion tax cut, I think
that strengthens us in conference because all throughout the debate,
all I heard is, they did not want any of it, they wanted to spend it
all. In fact, in their proposal, they wanted to raise taxes in order to
bring down the deficit, which I think is a flawed way to go, because we
have seen in the past that when we raise taxes and keep spending, the
deficits keep going.
The point is, now we have a revelation here where the Democrats want
$514 billion. We could do that and we can still fight, or the chairman
could fight in the conference committee for those spending restraints
that we all want and come out of conference with a $514 billion tax
number and still have the spending.
I think the Democrats may have something, and I am going to think
real hard about this.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to make a few
things clear before I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps).
First of all, as to the tax cut level sought by the resolution that
is now going to conference, this resolution has two different
provisions with respect to tax cuts.
First, they say, reconcile the passage by a date certain of the
President's request for $726 billion of additional tax cuts. Second, in
their revenue assumptions and elsewhere, they assume that we will pass
and permanently enact the tax cuts that were enacted by the House in
June of 2001. When we add those two together, the total amount of tax
reduction called for by this resolution is $1.35 trillion, not $726
billion. That should be made clear.
Secondly, we have proposed tax cuts. We would like to have some tax
cuts to go to the pockets and hands of people who are likely to spend
it and give this economy a boost. On January 6, we proposed just such a
rebate, along with some business tax cuts, accelerated appreciation,
immediate expensing in order to give this economy a kick.
Thirdly, let me say with respect to these spending levels,
Agriculture, Education, Energy and Commerce, which is Medicaid,
Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Ways and Means, which is Medicare, as
with respect to all of those, Mr. Speaker, we simply seek to restore
the level of spending in these programs to the level sought by the
President for the veterans and for Medicare beneficiaries.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished ranking member for
yielding me the time, and Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Democratic
motion to instruct conferees so that we can fix the budget so narrowly
passed by the House of Representatives, a Federal budget that is
supposed to reflect our values and our priorities, but this House
budget resolution does not do that and so we need to change it.
The Republican budget resolution embraces the administration's
irresponsible tax cut package at the expense of our Nation's health
care needs. This is part of our national security, our health care
security, and despite the protests of many Members of this Chamber, the
majority resolution still requires Medicare and Medicaid to be cut,
Medicaid to be cut by $93 billion, and the appropriating committees are
charged to either cut Medicare by almost $200 billion or to shortchange
an already weak prescription drug coverage benefit. Terrible choices.
These cuts endanger health care for almost 90 million Americans,
among them the most vulnerable members of our society. This is
unconscionable. This does not reflect American values.
As we move toward conference, we need to eliminate these terrible
cuts, and among them, these health care cuts include cuts to our
veterans, even as we are sending our young men and women off to war,
and they will one day come back to be our Nation's veterans. We are
cutting health care benefits to today's veterans, wheelchair bound,
frail, elderly. Promises made should be promises kept.
We need to reflect America's values in our budget, in our budget
resolution, and we need to support the Democratic motion to instruct
conferees so that we can do that.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time on this
motion to instruct conferees on a $514 billion tax cut.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, once again, I yield myself 30 seconds just
to make it clear.
We do not propose and would not have our motion construed to say that
we are adopting a $514 billion tax cut or any level of tax reduction.
We are saying that the tax cut ought to be adjusted accordingly after
restoring these entitlement cuts that we have proposed in the motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
We are watching quite a performance on the other side this afternoon.
First, we had the Budget chairman trying to explain away the vicious
cuts they have made to programs as vital as veterans services. Imagine
that, passing a budget that cuts veterans services, right in the middle
of the Iraq war. It was unconscionable and unthinkable. Small wonder he
tried to talk all around what they have done without ever really owning
up to what is the issue before us.
Then the majority leader comes to the floor. He tries to totally
redefine the motion that is advanced and before us. It looked a little
to me like they are waving the white flag, that they do not have the
votes to beat this motion because who, in the light of day, can vote
for the cuts to veterans services, to Medicare, to Medicaid and to our
Nation's farmers in the agricultural account.
There was no other budget advanced, not the administration's, not the
Republican-controlled Senate's, that had this measure of cuts. It was a
phenomenon of the House Committee on the Budget, led by the chairman
and endorsed by majority leadership.
I view always as one of the darker moments of my time in the House
the vote to support our troops taken at 2:30 in the morning followed
by, 15 minutes later, the passage of the budget which cut the funding
of veterans services. Frankly, it was a high water of hypocrisy in a
Chamber that sees a good bit of hypocrisy.
We have got to reject these cuts, and this is what this motion before
us does today. Reject the cuts to veterans services. Reject the cuts to
agriculture. Reject the cuts to education. Reject the cuts to Medicare.
That is the issue before us, and I will be very pleased if we can have
a strong bipartisan vote overturning the really ill-advised direction
the House budget would take us down.
[[Page H2547]]
Let us have a bipartisan vote on the motion to instruct.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time on the
Democrat motion to cut taxes by $514 billion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). For the benefit of the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Iowa reserves the balance of his time,
which is 12\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from South Carolina has 12
minutes remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, once again, I yield 30 seconds to myself to
say that in no way can this resolution be construed to support a tax
cut of $514 billion. If the gentleman wishes to put that construction
upon it, I am here to say, as the author of it, it does not apply. We
do not support such a tax cut. We have supported tax cuts to boost the
economy, but not the tax cuts that this budget resolution proposes
because it would drive a deficit deeper and deeper into debt.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting when we talk
about people saying they are against cutting waste, fraud and abuse. We
are all for doing everything we can to cut waste, fraud and abuse, and
I would suggest to my colleagues on the other side that possibly we
should look at waste, fraud and abuse and use those dollars for tax
cuts that we find.
Again, I want to reiterate, the maker of this motion is not talking
about tax cuts. What he is talking about is restoring funds to some of
those programs that are vital to the United States.
Here we are 2 years after Members from both sides of the aisle
pledged to leave no child behind, and yet the House majority has
approved budget cuts of over $9 billion from Leave No Child Behind. The
budget passed by this House proposes cuts in so many vital education
programs I do not even know where to begin.
After-school programs: After-school programs have been one of those
programs that have done more to help keep children getting into our
juvenile system than anything else. It has cut higher education
funding. It cuts teacher quality training. It cuts rural education.
This budget cuts money from everywhere in education.
When we passed Leave No Child Behind, we demanded more from teachers
and students, but this budget would cut billions that would help
teachers and students prepare to meet the new tougher standards imposed
by the Federal Government. If we are going to demand more from our
education system, we need to provide schools with adequate resources to
meet those demands. We fool ourselves and cheat our students when we
impose higher standards without providing the money necessary to
achieve those standards.
Our schools are in dire straits right now. I do not know about the
rest of my colleagues, but I know Oregon schools are. I visited a lot
of schools throughout my district and the State, and there are schools
that are literally falling down. Teachers are using closets as extra
classroom space. Kids are sitting on heaters for lack of room.
At a time when State budget crises are forcing schools to lay off
staff, increase class sizes and cut days off the school year, the
Federal Government is once again failing to live up to its commitment
and fund the laws that we have passed.
I do not understand why Congress would spend a year reforming our
education system only to turn around and fail to provide States with
the money needed for those reforms. We need to fund the No Child Left
Behind Act. We need to fund the Individuals With Disabilities Act.
Twenty-eight years ago, we promised we would fund 40 percent of that
program; we do not even fund half of that. To my State, it would mean
$120 million more a year. That is a lot of money to our State.
We need to fund student financial aid. Instead, this budget cuts
school lunches, student loan programs, after-school programs, increases
class size and diverts public funds to private schools. This is not
what we need to improve the education of our students.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to
instruct and in favor of increasing education funding and living up to
its commitment and living up to its promises.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the time on the Democrat motion to
cut taxes by $514 billion.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds to say the
gentleman is willfully misconstruing this resolution, and if he will
simply read his black letter language, he will find out not only do we
restore $214 billion of programs like Medicare and Medicaid to be at
the level the President requested, we also provide for the Breaux
amendment to be adopted and incorporated so that $396 billion can be
taken out of the tax cuts and assigned to the solvency of Social
Security. That is Section 319 of the Senate budget resolution which we
are asking the House to accede to.
Add those two together, it is about $700 billion. That is about the
size of the tax cut. This is not an endorsement of that tax cut in any
way, shape or form.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott).
{time} 1500
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and would just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, this chart, which
shows in stark terms what the budget deficit looked like over the
years, until 1993, when this green box right here shows the Democratic
plan to a surplus, and in 1 year we are back to worse than where we
were. I would point out that this chart was done before the
supplemental war budget, which has no way to pay for itself, so the red
ink would go even $70 billion further down than this chart.
Mr. Speaker, because of the tax cuts that caused this drop, we are
having to do spending cuts; spending cuts like cuts in school lunches,
Pell Grants, student loans, health care, and veterans benefits. That is
right, over $14 billion in veterans benefit cuts will be restored if
the motion to instruct is adopted.
Mr. Speaker, what are some of those cuts? Fraud, waste and abuse? No,
they are cuts in disability compensation, pensions, GI bill benefits,
housing subsidies, and burial funds. This is an unconscionable attack
against our military personnel at a time when they are deployed in
Iraq.
And Mr. Speaker, some say that we could get this through eliminating
waste, but the President of the United States does not need funding
cuts to stop paying benefits to people that are ineligible for
benefits. This budget will cut benefits for eligible veterans.
Now, what do some of the veterans groups say? Letters to the Speaker
from the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Disabled
American Veterans say that ``we recognize that our country has serious
budget problems, but cutting already underfunded veterans programs to
offset the cost of tax cuts is indefensible and callous.''
The Disabled American Veterans wrote, ``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? You will be reducing benefits and services for
disabled veterans at a time when thousands of our servicemen are in
harm's way fighting terrorists around the world, and thousands more of
our sons and daughters are preparing for war against Iraq.''
And what do the Paralyzed Veterans of America say? They say, in a
letter to the Speaker, ``The House Committee on the Budget proposal
also calls for cutting $15 billion over 10 years, $463 million in
fiscal year 2004 alone, in VA mandatory spending under the guise of
eliminating `fraud waste and abuse.' We do not consider payments to
war-disabled veterans, pensions for the poorest disabled veterans, and
GI benefits for soldiers returning from Afghanistan to be fraud, waste,
and abuse. Fifty percent of the spending in VA entitlement goes to
monthly payments to those veterans and their survivors. The House
Committee on the Budget plan, if approved, would force cuts in each of
these programs.''
Mr. Speaker, listen to our veterans, support our troops, and pass the
motion to instruct conferees.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the letters I just referred to.
[[Page H2548]]
March 17, 2003.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker and Representative Pelosi: As so many of
our nation's finest men and women are poised for possible war
in the Persian Gulf region, fighting a global war on terror
and defending our ideals at home and abroad, Congress is
considering budget cuts that would deny sick and disabled
veterans much-needed medical care and other earned benefits.
The House budget resolution proposes reducing both
mandatory and discretionary spending for veterans programs
and services by $15 billion over the next 10 years.
Especially appalling is a proposed 1 percent cut in mandatory
spending, including veterans disability compensation and
pensions, which is the main source of income for many
veterans.
We point out that the monthly compensation for 3.3 million
veterans and survivors increased just 1.4% this year. That is
the smallest cost-of-living adjustment in three years. Now,
with soaring energy costs driving up prices for other goods
and services, it is callous and indefensible to propose
slashing these benefits.
We recognize that our country has serious budget problems,
but cutting already under funded veterans' programs to offset
the costs of tax cuts is indefensible and callous.
Congress must rethink drastic cuts in benefits and services
for disabled veterans at a time when we have thousands of our
service members in harm's way fighting terrorism around the
world and when we are sending thousands more of our sons and
daughters to fight a war against Iraq.
Ronald F. Conley,
National Commander, The American Legion.
Ray C. Sisk,
Commander in Chief, Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Edward R. Heath, Sr.,
National Commander, Disabled American Veterans.
____
Disabled American Veterans,
March 17, 2003.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I write today on behalf of the 2.3
million disabled veterans, including the more than 1.2
million members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), to
communicate our deep-seated outrage regarding the fiscal year
2004 budget adopted by the House Budget Committee, which
would cut veterans programs by more than $15 billion during
the next 10 years.
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? You will be reducing benefits and services
for disabled veterans at a time when thousands of our
servicemembers are in harm's way fighting terrorists around
the world and thousands more of our sons and daughters are
preparing for war against Iraq.
The budget adopted by the Committee, on a nearly party-line
vote, would reduce funding for veterans health care by $844
million below the President's recommendation for next year.
It also proposes to cut $463 million from benefit programs,
such as disability compensation, pension, vocational
rehabilitation, education and survivors' benefits, next year
and $15 billion over the next 10 years. The budget proposal
is in distinct contract to the recommendations made by the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs to increase discretionary
programs, such as veterans health care, by $3 billion to help
ensure that our nation's sick and disabled veterans can be
cared for properly.
Mr. Speaker, you are personally aware of the crisis in
veterans health care and the urgent need to adequately fund
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.
If you, in your leadership role in the House, allow this
budget proposal to pass the House without exempting VA
programs from the massive cuts, it could mean the loss of
19,000 nurses, equating to the loss of 6.6 million outpatient
visits or more than three-quarters of a million hospital bed
days. But that is not all of the devastation that will be
caused by the proposed cuts. You will be reaching into the
pockets of our nation's service-connected veterans, including
combat disabled veterans, and robbing them and their
survivors of a portion of their compensation. Ninety percent
of VA's mandatory spending is from cash payments to service-
connected disabled veterans, low-income wartime veterans, and
their survivors.
As hundreds of thousands of America's brave young men and
women await the uncertainties brought on by war, including
the potential of biological and chemical attacks at the hand
of a fanatical tyrant, they should not have to also be
concerned about the discouraging possibilities of a
Department of Veterans Affairs that cannot provide either the
necessary services or benefits they have earned and might
need. Nor should World War II veterans, the ``Greatest
Generation,'' now in their twilight years, who are directly
responsible for the freedom and prosperity of our nation, be
forced out of a system designed specifically to provide for
their needs.
All eyes will be on the critical action of the House this
week as you vote on the budget. With America's sons and
daughters prepared to do battle with the enemies of our
country, and our veterans locked in battles over the crisis
in VA health care and drastic cuts to our programs, the
American public will want to know whether our government will
honor its commitment to our veterans and to their children--
our future veteans--serving in harm's way.
There is no question that the vote on the proposed budget
is an important vote, one that will set the tone for the
remainder of this Congress, and likely the next Congress.
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. If this budget
resolution retains provisions to cut veteran's programs, I
will use all the resources at my disposal to take our case to
the American people and call upon members of Congress to
oppose and vote against the budget resolution. I urge you to
reconsider the inequitable and ill-advised course proposed in
the Committee's partisan budget proposal. I look to you, in
your leadership position, to ensure that this Congress honors
our government's commitment to its veterans.
Sincerely,
Edward R. Heath, Sr,
National Commander.
____
Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Washington, DC.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: On behalf of the members of Paralyzed
Veterans of America (PVA) I am writing to express our
profound objection to the provisions contained in the FY 2004
Budget Resolution as approved by the House Committee on the
Budget that would cut veterans health care and benefit
programs by nearly $25 billion. The proposal, if implemented,
would have a shocking effect on VA health care services and
would be an affront to millions of veterans facing reductions
in their health care, compensation, pension and education
benefits.
The FY 2004 budget proposed by the Administration is
already inadequate to meet the health care needs of veterans.
The proposal, approximately $1.3 billion above the FY 2003
appropriation, would not even cover inflationary impact and
anticipated salary increases for VA health care workers. That
budget proposal already relies too much on unrealistic
management efficiencies, increased copayments, a new annual
enrollment tax on certain veterans using the VA health care
system and other ``efficiencies'' such as eliminating 5,000
VA nursing home beds. If the House Budget Committee plan is
approved, Congress would have to vote to further block health
care eligibility for hundreds of thousands currently eligible
veterans, and drastically increase waiting times for health
care and benefits adjudication. A cut of this size would
force the House of Representatives to vote for a budget that
would call for a loss of 9,000 VA physicians equating to a
loss of nearly 900,000 days of hospital care.
The House Budget Committee proposal also calls for cutting
$15 billion over ten years, $463 million in FY 2004 alone, in
VA mandatory spending under the guise of eliminating ``fraud,
waste and abuse.'' We do not consider payments to war-
disabled veterans pensions for the poorest disabled veterans
and G.I. Bill benefits for soldiers returning from
Afghanistan to be ``fraud, waste and abuse.'' Ninety percent
of the spending for VA entitlements goes in monthly payments
to these veterans and their survivors. The House Budget
Committee plan, if approved, would force cuts in each of
these programs.
Mr. Speaker, budget resolutions set spending priorities. We
find it hard to fathom that veterans would not be a priority
to the Budget Committee, or the leadership of the House of
Representatives. We know that forcing spending cuts on
veterans in order to pay for other priorities, such as large
tax cuts, would not be the priority of the American people.
Hundreds of thousands of this country's men and women in the
Armed Forces are poised to invade the country of Iraq in
defense of the United States. In defense of them and their
best interest, we must strongly object to this Budget
Resolution in its entirety if the magnitude of these cuts in
veterans benefits and services is sustained in any fashion.
The vote on this budget resolution will be closely watched by
our members and all veterans.
Sincerely,
Joseph L. Fox, Sr.,
National President.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), the very distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in part because I have
[[Page H2549]]
just now read the motion to instruct conferees. The ranking member on
the Committee on the Budget had indicated that perhaps there were some
misrepresentations by a description of what some of the black letter
language was. If the gentleman would be willing to respond to some
questions that I have, it might assist us in understanding, or at least
it will assist this gentleman from California in understanding.
When, for example, on page 5 the gentleman indicates that we be
instructed to eliminate the reconciliation instruction, that means to
remove the 1 percent across-the-board cut; is that correct?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it means it is to remove, in the case of
agriculture, a reduction of $18 billion.
Mr. THOMAS. That is 1 percent across the board.
Mr. SPRATT. If the gentleman would be so kind as to let me finish
answering his question.
Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to go
through each of the committees, that will eat up my entire time.
The instruction was a 1 percent.
Mr. SPRATT. We are seeking to restore to the level the President
requested Medicare, Medicaid, education.
Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, it does not say restore to. Reading
the black letters in front of me, it does not say restore to the
President's request. It says eliminate the reconciliation instruction,
not restore to the President's request.
So it is clear, then, it is the removal of the 1 percent no matter
what they may say they mean based upon that language.
Then when we drop down further and the gentleman talks about the
managers receding to the Senate on section 319. It was described, I
understand, as the Breaux amendment. The Breaux amendment is in two
sections. One section is to cut by $396 billion, the other is to create
a reserve fund to strengthen Social Security.
My assumption is that when the gentleman refers to 319, not tying it
to the money number that was included in the Breaux amendment, he is
referring only to the creation of a reserve fund or a lockbox for
Social Security; is that correct?
Mr. SPRATT. In the amount of $396 billion, which would be deducted
from the gentleman's tax cut. We would instead invest it in the
insolvency of Social Security.
Mr. THOMAS. Does that language include the $396 billion which was
included in the Breaux amendment?
Mr. SPRATT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, section 319
reads, ``If legislation is reported by the Senate Committee on Finance,
or if an amendment is offered or conference report is submitted to
extend the solvency of the Social Security trust funds, the chairman of
the sitting Committee on the Budget may revise the aggregates, the
functional totals, the allocations and limits by up to $396 billion in
budget authority.
Mr. THOMAS. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is an attempt to create
a lockbox to preserve Social Security.
And then, no matter how much the gentleman may not like the
explanation, when we read the black letter language, what it says is
that instead of a $1.3 billion reduction in taxes, there will be a $1.1
billion reduction in taxes, and it in no way addresses the $726 billion
amount that was included in the House budget resolution.
That is not discussed, nor is it altered by this motion to instruct.
There may be an attempt through language on the floor to convey that
that is the intent; but as the gentleman requested, if we read the
black letter language in front of us, the $726 billion budget cut for
taxes is retained. It is a removal of the 1 percent cut across the
board, and it is to create a Social Security lockbox. That is what they
are attempting to do.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to correct the gross
misstatement the gentleman just made as to the construction of this
motion.
If he will read on, the last sentence says, ``and that such managers
be instructed to address the revenue levels by the amounts needed.''
``To adjust the revenue levels by the amounts needed to offset the cost
of the instructions in paragraphs 1.'' Those are the entitlement
reclamations. ``The restoration of the entitlement expenditures.'' And
two, that is the Breaux reserve fund. To adjust the levels of revenues
in this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this is a most extraordinary debate. Where
I come from they mean what they say and they say what they mean.
Let us look at this debate. In the first 10 minutes, the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget talks against the resolution. He is
surprised by the majority leader, who comes to the floor and says, you
know, I think we can go for this, even while the chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means tries to parse the language.
It is quite clear they are a little uncertain of what to do. What is
this all about? It is because cuts to veterans services do not stand
the light of day. And this is not 2:30 in the morning. This is in the
afternoon, with America watching and our country at war. So it is time
we pass this resolution and reject the cuts to veterans services
contained in the majority budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say, no, that
is not what it says. It says cut taxes $1.1 billion and freeze veterans
benefits. That is what the other side's motion to instruct says.
You have to read it. You wrote it; you read it. I do not like it,
because, quite honestly, I think our budget was better. But if the
other side is going to instruct us, at least know what you are
instructing us. You are instructing us to freeze on spending at 2003
levels, and you are saying cut taxes by at least $1.1 trillion. That is
what the letter of the law in the instruction says.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I believe we have the right to close.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). That is correct.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the vice chairman of the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I did not think that the last speaker, a
colleague who used to be for controlling the growth in spending, would
be advocating spending so much.
When we were in the Committee on the Budget voting out this bill, my
Democratic colleagues came out with a total of $982 billion of new
spending over the next 10 years. That is far more than the amount of
the tax cut. It would not have helped reduce the deficit. It was simply
more government spending.
Only in Washington when we spend more money do people call it a cut.
The total budget is going to go up 3 percent. Medicare is going to go
up 7.9 percent. Veterans spending is going to go up 6.9 percent, but
they called it a cut. They call a $3.97 billion increase a cut when it
is actually an increase of 6.9 percent.
I believe that during the time I was on the Committee on the Budget
we had some clear delineation. We wanted to cut taxes. Our Democratic
colleagues did not want a cut in taxes; they wanted to spend more. We
never had a debate with President Clinton in which he thought we were
spending too much. It was always that we needed to spend more, and that
is the dialogue that is happening now. Then some of my conservative
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying they cannot, in
some areas, have a 1 percent cut in the budget for 1 year and then
allow it to go back on its trail of new spending.
I was proud of what the Committee on the Budget did. I would have
liked for us to stay on that issue. I would have liked for us, for 1
year, to take a deep breath and show at least some of what local
communities are doing, where Governor Richardson in New Mexico is
cutting spending and cutting taxes. He happens to be a Democrat doing
what Republicans usually do.
In my judgment, we should control the growth of spending, take a
breath for a year, cut taxes and grow this economy. But instead, what
we are seeing once again are my Democratic colleagues saying we are not
spending
[[Page H2550]]
enough. We need to spend more and more and more. I think we need to do
what they are doing on the State and local levels: suck it in a little
bit, control, and spend 1 percent less on non-defense, non-homeland
security and get our country's financial house in order. That is what I
believe we should be doing.
Whether or not my colleague on the other side of the aisle is
supporting a $514 billion tax cut or a $700 billion-plus tax cut, the
bottom line is we need a tax cut to grow this economy. This side of the
aisle is not going to be like President Hoover. We need to move this
economy forward. That is absolutely essential.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on this side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 5
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt)
has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of our caucus.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today must be April Fool's Day, because
what I hear in this debate is our Republican colleagues renouncing
their budget and, in essence, accepting ours.
This motion to recommit is about values. Mr. Speaker, what message is
the Republican majority sending our brave men and women fighting in
Iraq even as we speak when it cuts $14.6 billion in veterans benefits
in the budget resolution; when it cuts the health care and disability
compensation even as hundreds of thousands of men and women are
deployed in the Middle East risking their lives for America, even as
dozens of our wounded troops are airlifted back to hospitals in Germany
and the United States?
The Republican value is very clear, as is their message: fight for us
today, but we cannot make any promises to you about tomorrow. And that
is exactly what their budget does. In fact, the Disabled American
Veterans described the House Republican approach in the following terms
by asking, ``Has the Congress no shame''?
{time} 1515
Mr. Speaker, Republicans choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our
Nation's heroes and rob our programs to pay for tax cuts for the
wealthy, and it is a real shame. These young men and women may well
depend upon the benefits they are seeking to cut.
This weekend, I was fortunate enough to visit 7,000 troops at Fort
Dix, New Jersey, 7,000 men and women, 7,000 sons and daughters, 7,000
mothers and fathers about to be deployed to Iraq. They were unanimous
in their dedication and selflessness, and they are ready to perform and
perform proudly. But soldiers do not pick the battle or the place or
the time. They just respond to the call. We should respond to the call
by rallying behind them and those that served before them, our
veterans.
Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is that opportunity. Try telling
them that they are part of waste, fraud and abuse. The other side had 8
years of Republican control to root out that waste, fraud and abuse,
and Republicans did nothing. Do not do it on the backs of veterans
today. Vote for the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for not only
yielding time, but for offering this most important motion to instruct
conferees on the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution.
What message is the Republican Majority sending our brave men and
women fighting in Iraq even as we speak, when it cuts 14.6 billion
dollars in Veterans' Benefits in the Budget Resolution?
Cuts to health care and disability compensation, even as hundreds of
thousands of men and women are deployed in the Middle East, risking
their lives for freedom and democracy?
Cuts to health care and disability compensation, even as dozens of
our wounded troops are airlifted back to hospitals in Germany and the
United States?
The Republican Budget's message is clear: Fight for us today, but we
can't make any promises for tomorrow.
And that's exactly what their budget does--in fact, the Disabled
American Veterans described the House Republican approach in the
following terms:
``Has the 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 . . . to pay for tax cuts for
the wealthy?''
It is a real shame. Our men and women in uniform are fighting in Iraq
or are about to be shipped out to the Middle East, and Republicans are
suggesting cutting benefits many of these young men and women may
depend on upon their return.
This weekend I was fortunate enough to visit 7,000 troops at Fort Dix
in New Jersey; 7,000 men and women; 7,000 sons and daughters, mothers
and fathers, about to be deployed to Iraq.
They were unanimous in their dedication and selflessness--they told
me that, no matter what their personal views may be on this war, they
will fight honorably and will make us proud.
I wish the Republican Leadership had even an iota of their bravery,
selflessness and dedication. But instead, it turns its back on these
troops, their families, our communities, and, worst of all, our
veterans.
Soldiers don't pick the battle. They don't pick the place. They don't
pick the time. they just respond to the call, and we should respond to
the call by rallying behind them, and those that served before them,
our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I believe all of us who say we support our troops and
veterans should be on this floor supporting this motion when the time
comes. I urge my colleagues to vote for the gentleman's motion to
instruct.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker should have saved that
debate for the debate on the budget. We are debating a motion to
instruct conferees.
I have to admit to the gentleman from South Carolina I did misread
this. I thought he was eliminating all the cuts, 1 percent across the
board. Indeed, what he is doing is freezing. I am willing to accept
that. I will take a freeze over the cut. It is still spending
restraint, and I will do that.
Secondly, in the provision, the gentleman is right. I thought it was
$212 billion out of the $726 billion tax relief, but as I read it and
analyze it, it is $212 billion from $1.4 trillion that is in the
budget. So we lower the tax number down to $1.2 trillion, more than
enough to accommodate the President's economic growth package. I am
going to support this motion to instruct, and I ask the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) in the interest of bipartisanship, I am
willing to work with the gentleman on this motion to instruct and ask
the gentleman if he is going to call a voice vote on the motion.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I intend to ask for a recorded vote.
Mr. DeLAY. Then it is obvious this is nothing but a political
operation. If the gentleman calls for a recorded vote on this, it is
all politics on the other side. The problem is, they so poorly wrote
this that now the Democrats are going to support freezing the budget to
2003 levels of all these committees, and give us enough of a tax number
to accommodate the President's package.
I am all for it, and I am going to vote with the gentleman.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and I thank him for his tremendous leadership once again in
putting forth a proposal that reflects the values of our country. Even
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, has to admit
the gentleman is right on his motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct the
budget resolution conferees to reject some of the most harmful cuts in
the Republican budget.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal budget should be a statement of our shared
national values. We should allocate our resources to those proposals
and initiatives that are important to our country. The budget passed by
the Republicans in the House certainly does not meet that standard. I
am not even sure they understand what they passed in the House.
But what we do know is that when the President sent his budget to
Congress, we thought we had seen the worst of it. The Bush budget
shortchanges veterans, seniors, children and the environment to pay for
his tax cut.
[[Page H2551]]
But the worst was yet to come. The House Republicans did the
President's budget one better, or one worse as the case may be, and
made even deeper cuts in education and issues relating to seniors. The
difference is significant.
President Bush's budget is not balanced. He pays for his tax cut by
adding more than $2 trillion to the deficit. It is reckless and
irresponsible.
House Republicans have shown us that the only way they can pay for
the President's reckless and irresponsible tax cut and balance the
budget by 2012 is to slash veterans benefits, slash student loans,
slash the school lunch program, and slash Medicaid. Slashing those
priorities in order to give every millionaire in this country a $90,000
tax cut, that does not reflect our values.
Americans value our veterans. We value education. We value access to
quality health care. Passing a budget that cuts those priorities to pay
for a huge tax cut that will not benefit most Americans is simply
wrong.
The Democratic motion instructs conferees to do the right thing. A
vote for the Democratic motion is to reject the cuts to veterans
benefits, education and health care currently in the bill passed by the
Republicans. The announcement by the distinguished majority leader that
he would accept the Spratt motion to instruct is an admission that the
Republican budget is wrong.
We must not shortchange the veterans who have so courageously
defended our country and the thousands of future veterans who are
risking their lives in Iraq as we speak. A vote for the Spratt
amendment supports our veterans. It is ironic that on the same night
that this House properly passed a resolution to honor the troops, the
Republican majority passed this budget that dishonors the troops by
making deep cuts in veterans benefits.
The conferees should accept the other body's language that provides
$14.6 billion more than the House Republican bill for veterans
disability and education benefits. We must not shortchange students who
rely on student loans and other education programs that expand
opportunities and promote excellence.
A vote for the Spratt motion to instruct expands opportunity and
promotes excellence. It rejects $9 billion in cuts to student loans and
the school lunch program. We must do the right thing for millions of
seniors, children and disabled Americans who rely on Medicare for their
health care coverage.
We should accept the other body's language that rejects $94 billion
in cuts in Medicaid. These cuts threaten access to nursing home care,
hospital services and prescription drugs for some of our most
vulnerable citizens. A vote for the Spratt motion to instruct would
remove that threat from the budget.
It is simply wrong to pass a budget that fails veterans, fails
students, fails seniors, fails children and fails the disabled. The
American people deserve better. I urge my colleagues to support the
Democratic motion to instruct.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman is recognized
for 4 minutes.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished minority leader, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has a great speech writer, but
the speech writer failed to read the budget. Great speech, but the
speech writer did not read the budget.
School lunches are not mentioned in the budget. It is not in there.
Education, not even mentioned. There are no cuts in education. There
are no cuts to seniors. We cannot find farmers in here. Hospitals, we
will not find the word ``hospital'' in the budget. No, that is not what
a budget is about. The gentlewoman knows that. Student loans, that is
not mentioned in the budget. Cuts to the school lunch program, she
claims. School lunch program is not in here.
See, the interesting thing about it is that Democrats come running to
the floor claiming there is no waste in Washington. So very hastily
they draw up a motion to instruct conferees. And what does that motion
say? It says there is no waste in Washington. The Democrats cannot find
one penny of waste in Washington. So instead of finding waste and
instead of adopting the Republican-passed budget, what should we do?
Well, it says right here in black and white, let us reduce those
instructions so what we end up with is a freeze in spending. So they
are freezing school lunches and veterans benefits, freezing hospitals,
freezing student loans, freezing all these things that they are talking
about. They come running to the floor breathlessly to discuss this and
send their press releases and play political games about a motion to
instruct.
That is not what this is about. But that is what the other side of
the aisle is saying. What do they do with the so-called ``savings'' of
just freezing spending? They want to reduce the tax cut. We happen to
support a $1.3 trillion tax cut. By reducing this, what the Democrats
come running here to the floor today to support is a $1.1 trillion tax
cut.
Well, we have considered it. It is not what we passed. We would
rather find waste in Washington. We do not want to just freeze
spending. We would rather go through each and every program and find
the savings, find the waste and the abuse, so the money and the
programs go to the intended purpose. But instead, what the Democrats
want to do is freeze spending. All right, I guess we can consider doing
that when we get to conference.
So I would encourage my Republican colleagues to vote for the Spratt
motion to instruct conferees that freezes spending. That is at least a
good start. I think we could do better, but I think this is at least a
good start to freeze spending. Of course, freezing spending at the 2003
level is a cut, is a cut from the increase that was anticipated, the
anticipated increase that the other side of the aisle sometimes comes
to the floor and claims that we provide cuts in.
So 2003 levels in a 2004 budget is what the other side of the aisle
is supporting.
The second thing they say is, reduce the tax cut by that amount. We
have done the math. We have read the black and white letters of the
motion to instruct conferees, and the math is very simple. We come up
with $1.1 trillion worth of tax relief. That is far and above where the
Senate was. That is not where the House wanted to be, but we think it
is at least worthy of taking into consideration in the conference.
So I believe even though we can find more waste in Washington than
what the Democrats are suggesting, and we can have more tax reform and
more simplification and more reduction in taxes to create jobs, even
though I believe those things, I believe we should support this motion
to instruct conferees. It is nonbinding, it is political, but I think
they have been hoisted by their own petard.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, this restores spending to the present levels
for Medicaid, Medicare, school lunches. In addition, this does not
endorse any particular level of tax cut. It simply says it adjusts the
revenues accordingly after restoring these amounts to the budgets.
It is a good motion. Members should vote for it if they want to vote
for Medicaid, Medicare, student loans and other programs which are so
vitally important to our country.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Spratt/Pomeroy motion to instruct conferees on the budget resolution.
This motion rejects the House's mandatory spending cuts to education,
health care, and veterans' programs by calling on the conferees, on a
deficit-neutral basis, to restore these cuts. These cuts are included
in the Republican budget--which I voted against--but not in the Senate
resolution, or the President's budget.
As our county is engaged in a war with Iraq that will require
additional spending, we must not overlook our domestic priorities.
This motion calls on the conferees to reject the budget cuts to
Medicaid and Medicare; cuts to key education programs like school
lunches and student loans; cuts in veterans' benefits; cuts to railroad
retirees' pensions; cuts in aid for working families and the disabled;
and cuts to the food stamp program.
It is astonishing that in this time of conflict, we could cut
benefits to our nation's veterans. The House-passed resolution cuts
direct spending for veterans' benefits by a total of $14.6 billion over
ten years. Veterans all across the Nation will be hurt if these cuts
are
[[Page H2552]]
not restored. Our Nation's veterans have risked their lives for our
country and they served on the front lines. We cannot deny them basic
benefits like housing, medical care, and other services that civilians
receive.
I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to restore these cuts.
Specifically, my amendment would have stricken the reconciliation
instructions to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in section 201
(b)(2)(M) and increased mandatory budget authority and outlays for
Function 700. Unfortunately, the committee rejected my amendment.
The House resolution's cuts are supposed to be unspecified reductions
in veterans' benefits that eliminate so-called ``waste, fraud, and
abuse.'' We are robbing from our veterans' programs--health care and
disability compensation--to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.
According to Amvets, a veterans organization, more than 200,000
veterans seeking health care in January waited more than six months. VA
officials say they are working on improving the wait time. The national
goal for a doctor's visit is a 30-day wait. Waits at Texas hospitals
and clinics abound.
Hospitalized veterans also are vying for too few doctors and nurses.
And the VA system has started drastically rationing its health care,
deciding some veterans get care while others don't.
It is still unclear how budget cuts will affect post-war health
benefits for troops returning from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
A 1998 law compels the VA to provide free medical care to those newly
returned from a combat zone, whether or not they have a military
service-related disability, for up to two years. After that, only those
with medical problems related to military service qualify for lifelong
medical benefits.
We wonder how a system that cannot afford to treat the veterans it
already serves will be able to handle new ones, especially if some of
those new patients may be exposed to chemical or biological weapons in
this war. It is unconscionable that we will not provide additional
benefits to those who have suffered from Agent Orange while serving in
the Vietnam Conflict, and we do not know all the ills that possibly
face our troops now deployed in Iraq.
More than 6.5 million veterans are enrolled in the VA health system,
but the VA is budgeted to provide care for only 4.8 million patients in
2004.
Will support for our troops evaporate once war ends? We must fund
critical programs for veterans. I urge my colleagues to support the
Spratt/Pomeroy motion.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Budget Resolution approved last
month by this body contains cuts to domestic programs that millions of
Americans depend on, day in and day out.
The victims of these funding cuts include Medicaid, children's health
care, student loan, and veterans programs. To slash programs that
provide health care to our seniors and children, educate our students
and honor the commitments made to the veterans who have bravely
protected our freedom flies in the face of the American values that we
hold so dearly.
Mr. Speaker, the President didn't request cuts for these programs.
Furthermore, the Senate's budget did not contain these cuts. Yet, this
chamber cut these programs in order to fund a tax cut.
Ask any group of senior citizens if they'd trade Medicare funding for
a tax cut on their dividends, and I guarantee you they'd choose
Medicare. Ask any high school senior what's more important to him, a
tax cut or a student loan program that will make his education more
affordable. The answer is clear.
Ask any of our troops who are fighting so valiantly to bring freedom
to Iraq whether they'd rather have a tax cut or adequately funded
veterans programs. I bet you they'd want this country to honor their
military service and restore the $14.6 billion this budget cuts from
veterans programs over the next 10 years.
We cannot afford this tax cut on economic grounds alone. But to pay
for it by taking away from our seniors, students, veterans and farmers
is particularly shameful. I urge my colleagues to support this motion
and instruct the budget conferees to restore funding for these crucial
domestic programs.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of the gentleman from South Carolina's motion to instruct conferees on
the budget resolution. This common sense, non-binding motion will
restore some sanity to this budget.
Put simply, Mr. Spratt's resolution rejects cuts to education, health
care, and veterans' programs by urging the House and Senate conferees,
on a deficit-neutral basis, to restore these cuts. The House budget is
so extreme that these cuts are not included in the Senate-passed budget
or even the Bush distraction's budget blueprint.
It is sadly ironic that at the same time we send our young people
abroad to fight a war, the majority is advancing a budget that will
force those same young people to pay the bill for their recklessness.
By showering the most privileged among us with hundreds of billions of
dollars in tax breaks and running up more than a trillion dollars in
debt, this budget poses a serious threat to the long-term economic
well-being of the nation.
Month after month, more American families are suffering from the
failure of this Administration's irresponsible economic strategy. With
the economy hemorrhaging jobs for every sector, an increasing number of
Americans are losing faith that they will ever find a job. With this
budget, the majority has turned their backs on the problems of American
families. Instead of offering new ideas and fresh solutions, the
Administration continues to push a tired ideology that has turned our
once-robust economy into a job-destroying machine.
I believe we are obligated to help our States, counties and cities
meet the every-increasing burdens of skyrocketing programs. I believe
we are obligated to reject the drastic cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. I
believe we are obligated to reject the cuts to education funding,
including school lunches and student loans. I believe we are obligated
to reject the majority's cuts to the critical programs that benefit our
veterans. I believe we are obligated to reject the cuts to assistance
programs for the working poor--especially important during this
economic downturn.
Most important though, this budget will hang more than a trillion
dollars of debt around the necks of our children and grandchildren.
They will be paying for this mistake for decades to come. The
President's own chief economist, in his academic writings, agrees that
the chronic deficits perpetuated by this budget will raise interest
rates, and cut off economic growth for the future.
I will continue to fight for a budget that contains a fiscally
responsible stimulus plan that cuts taxes today, while meeting our
obligation to prepare for the future. this is not a time to shrink from
our responsibilities to one another. We need to meet the test of this
demanding movement in our history.
I thank Ranking Member Spratt, for offering this reasonable motion to
instruct and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to instruct conferees on the budget
resolution will be followed by two 5-minute votes on motions to suspend
the rules that were debated earlier today.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 399,
nays 22, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 95]
YEAS--399
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
[[Page H2553]]
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--22
Burgess
Cannon
Culberson
Deal (GA)
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Hart
Hefley
Hostettler
Istook
Kingston
Kolbe
Miller (FL)
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Royce
Shadegg
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Toomey
Weldon (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Combest
Crowley
Foley
Gephardt
Hulshof
Hyde
McCarthy (MO)
McInnis
Mica
Oberstar
Simmons
Souder
Walden (OR)
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette) (during the vote). Members
are advised that approximately 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1551
Messrs. KOLBE, SHADEGG, CANNON, PAUL, MILLER of Florida, DEAL of
Georgia, NORWOOD, CULBERSON, ROYCE, KINGSTON, TAYLOR of North Carolina,
FRANKS of Arizona, WELDON of Florida, HEFLEY, and BURGESS, and Ms. HART
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. PENCE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 95, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the
Chair appoints the following conferees:
For consideration of the House concurrent resolution and the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Nussle,
Shays, and Spratt.
There was no objection.
____________________