[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 39 (Thursday, March 25, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1487-H1493]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 393, 
        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 574 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 574

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for

[[Page H1488]]

     further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
     Res. 393) establishing the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 2005 and setting 
     forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2004 and 
     2006 through 2009. No further general debate shall be in 
     order. The concurrent resolution shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The concurrent 
     resolution shall be considered as read. No amendment shall be 
     in order except those printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considererd as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 
     amendment. All points of order against the amendments are 
     waived except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. 
     After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution for amendment and a final period of general 
     debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall rise and report 
     the concurrent resolution to the House with such amendment as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and 
     amendments thereto to final adoption without intervening 
     motion except amendments offered by the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical 
     consistency. The concurrent resolution shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), ranking minority member of the committee, pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 574 is a structured 
rule providing for the consideration of the Concurrent Resolution on 
the Budget for fiscal year 2005. The rule makes in order only those 
amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the 
resolution which may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, 
and shall not be subject to amendment. The rule waives all points of 
order against the amendments printed in the report, except that the 
adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute 
the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment.
  The rule further provides, upon the conclusion of consideration of 
the concurrent resolution for amendment, for a final period of general 
debate not to exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Budget. Finally, the rule permits the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical 
consistency and provides that the concurrent resolution shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, the Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2005, 
H. Con. Res. 393, provides for $2.4 trillion in total Federal spending 
for the next fiscal year and sets us on course to cut the deficit in 
half in 4 years. The resolution provides for total discretionary 
spending of $818.736 billion in fiscal year 2005. Discretionary defense 
spending is at the President's requested level of $402 billion. The 
resolution also accommodates the President's requested increase in 
homeland security, minus a 0.5 percent efficiency savings. Non-defense, 
non-homeland security spending is held level for fiscal year 2005. The 
resolution also responsibly provides for up to $50 billion in fiscal 
year 2005 for additional costs related to operations in Afghanistan and 
in Iraq. Total veterans spending is increased by $1.2 billion for the 
next fiscal year, and the resolution does not include any of the fees 
proposed in the administration's budget.
  It should be noted, also, Mr. Speaker, that no new mandatory spending 
is provided for in this resolution. Reconciliation instructions are 
included directing the Committee on Ways and Means to report a bill by 
October 1 that prevents a tax increase over the next 5 years. Without a 
change in the law, expiring provisions in the 2001 and 2003 tax relief 
bills would result in a tax increase on Americans beginning next year. 
The resolution also accommodates changes needed to write permanently 
into law the $1,000 child tax credit, the marriage penalty relief, and 
setting the lowest income tax bracket at 10 percent. Additional 
reconciliation instructions direct five House committees to report 
bills by July 15 of this year to eliminate $13.2 billion in waste, 
fraud, and abuse from government programs over the 5 years of this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the Rules and Budget Committees, I 
would like to congratulate Chairman Dreier on a fair rule allowing for 
open debate and Chairman Nussle for producing a budget that is focused 
on defense, economic growth, and our Nation's long history as a land of 
opportunity. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this budget is about securing 
America, creating jobs, and responsible planning. American families do 
not have unlimited bank accounts.

                              {time}  1030

  They have budgets, and they prioritize how they spend and save their 
money. The Federal Government must set budgets and prioritize spending 
as well.
  This budget continues our commitment to defense and homeland security 
as the Federal Government's number one responsibility, just as our 
Founding Fathers intended. It provides for increased funding to help 
secure America's borders, defend against biological attacks, protect 
our critical infrastructure, and train and equip our first responders. 
And it takes a comprehensive, responsible approach to protecting our 
Nation, winning the war on terror and preparing our military for future 
security threats and challenges.
  Mr. Speaker, by avoiding tax increases and protecting the child tax 
credit and relief from the marriage tax penalty and relief for lower-
income workers, our budget continues the policies that are helping our 
economy to recover.
  Our economy is growing, not as fast as I would like, but it is headed 
in the right direction, and we need to keep it on track that way. 
Raising taxes would stop this growth dead in its tracks.
  I believe in balanced budgets, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to have 
served in the House when Republicans produced the first balanced budget 
in 40 years. But I do not believe in balancing the budget by simply 
shifting the burden to American workers, families, and business owners 
in the form of tax increases. Our budget is focused on allowing the 
Committee on Appropriations to make the responsible spending choices 
and fund the highest priorities within the overall framework 
established by this resolution.
  We provide for full funding of the Medicare law to provide seniors 
help in paying for their prescription drugs for the first time ever. We 
continue the yearly increases in education spending and fund the No 
Child Left Behind Act so that our children are better prepared for the 
future, and we provide an additional $1.2 billion for veterans' health 
care.
  Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from Iraq, and that trip served as a 
close-up reminder of the hard work and sacrifices made by those who 
serve in the Armed Forces. We made our promises to veterans, and those 
promises must be kept. Our budget provides for these priorities, 
strengthens our defense, and puts us on track to cut the deficit in 
half in the next 4 years, with declining deficits in the future, and is 
accomplished without raising taxes on the American people.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the 
rule and the underlying resolution.
  Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H1489]]

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, Economics 101 tells us that if we spend more 
than we make, we quickly find ourselves in a hole. And as the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) often says when asked about the Federal 
deficit, the first thing we have to do when we find ourselves in a hole 
is stop digging. Well, Mr. Speaker this country has been digging for 3 
straight years, and the result is a very, very deep hole.
  Three years ago we projected a surplus of $432 billion for fiscal 
year 2005. But the Republican budgets of the past 3 years have changed 
a few things. We now face a deficit of $521 billion this year; a debt 
accumulation of $1.2 trillion over the last year, this year, and the 
next; and deficits will continue as far as our forecasts go. That is a 
dangerous trend, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell the Members why.
  Budget deficits and the ensuing debt are bad for the economy. That is 
a view that almost all economists share. The current chairman of 
President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, Harvard Professor 
Gregory Mankiw, even agrees. As a matter of fact, I have right here his 
well-known and respected 1998 economics textbook, ``Principles of 
Economics.'' In it, Professor Mankiw wrote about what he called `` . . 
. the most basic lesson about budget deficits,'' that when a government 
runs a budget deficit, investment falls and the economy's growth rate 
is reduced.
  This is a very important point to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the 
budget deficit can really harm the economy, especially since the jobs 
outlook for the 8.2 million unemployed is getting worse, not better. 
The latest Labor Department numbers show the average length of 
unemployment is now up to 20.3 weeks, the longest duration of 
unemployment in 20 years. Coupled with the administration's refusal to 
extend unemployment benefits, the situation for the jobless looks bleak 
and unlikely to improve.
  It did not have to be that way, Mr. Speaker. Our Nation's surpluses 
were meant to shore up Social Security for the retiring baby boom 
generation and pay down the national debt. This may sound familiar to 
anyone who may be listening to the debate today, and it should. Mr. 
Speaker, for the third year in a row, this House is considering a 
budget that makes deep funding cuts to our national priorities while at 
the same time it drives America deeper and deeper into debt.
  There is only one way to dig ourselves out of this hole now, Mr. 
Speaker: by working together, as a national family, to restore fiscal 
responsibility. That is how families across the country operate. They 
take an honest look at their expenses, their debts, and their income, 
and then they sit down at the kitchen table and work it out.
  That is what Democrats have tried to do repeatedly with the Federal 
budget. We have repeatedly urged Republicans to forget politics as 
usual and join us in a bipartisan budget plan that does not bankrupt 
our grandchildren.
  Last year, Democrats offered a budget that would have saved our 
Nation and our grandchildren almost $1 trillion in debt over 10 years. 
I need to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The budget Democrats proposed last 
year cost almost $1 trillion less over 10 years than the Republican 
budget. That is a phenomenal number, but not one Republican Member of 
this House voted for that bill, not one.
  Mr. Speaker, despite their rhetoric, Republicans do not want to deal 
with the problem of the deficit. They would rather hide behind budget 
gimmicks and accounting tricks to hide the true cost of their agenda.
  The budget that is before us today does not reflect the fiscal 
reality of our Nation today, Mr. Speaker. That is because it omits a 
number of large expenditures that are sure to exist, including funding 
for the war in Iraq after fiscal year 2005 and the cost of making the 
President's tax cuts permanent, a goal that Republicans have repeatedly 
advocated, but which is conspicuously missing from their budget. 
Republicans also assume billions of dollars in unspecified cuts that 
will never be enacted.
  At best, the Republican budget will dig our Nation deeper into debt, 
leaving us with a $377 billion deficit in 2005, spending the entire $1 
trillion Social Security surplus from 2005 to 2009, and leaving America 
with deeper deficits far into the future. It is an irresponsible 
proposal brought to us by the leadership of the Republican Party.
  Mr. Speaker, I am getting sick and tired of this. The American people 
deserve better, and they expect that Congress will act in their best 
interest, not spend the Social Security surplus and burden their 
grandchildren with debt. I believe that America deserves better than 
this partisan misleading and divisive resolution. That is why today, 
Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favor of the Democratic budget alternative.
  The Democratic budget resolution will provide real fiscal discipline, 
with a balanced budget over 10 years, by extending pay-as-you-go rules 
to both spending and tax cuts and by offsetting the cost of tax cuts 
through reform measures such as closing costly loopholes and 
eliminating abusive tax shelters. There are no tricks, no gimmicks, and 
no hidden costs.
  The Republican budgets of the past 3 years have clearly led America 
in the wrong direction. And what do we have to show for 3 years of 
fiscal mismanagement, 2.9 million fewer jobs, paltry funding for 
education, health care, and other national priorities, and a $1.2 
trillion debt for our grandchildren to pay. The budget resolution 
before us today will only compound these problems.
  If Members of Congress are really serious about reducing the debt, 
they would vote today for the Democratic budget alternative. Democrats 
have put together an honest proposal to reduce the deficit, invest in 
our Nation, and restore fiscal responsibility in the budget process. It 
is the right and responsible vote to make for this country, its economy 
and its people. And that is why I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting for the Democratic budget alternative.
  The American people deserve no less.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule and 
to the underlying budget.
  Yesterday I offered two amendments in the Committee on Rules. By the 
way, both of these were job amendments. One of these amendments would 
have increased funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, which is 
woefully underfunded in this budget before us. The other amendment 
would have protected families and communities throughout the West by 
providing the necessary funding for hazardous fuel reduction programs.
  What the hazardous fuel reduction program does is it helps stop all 
of those horrible forest fires we were having in the West, it protects 
communities, it protects homes and it protects healthy trees so that 
they can be logged. And at the same time it also provides jobs.
  When we look at cutting the Corps of Engineers' budget, what does 
that budget do? Why would we increase it? It is the budget, it is the 
organization that dredges all of my coastal communities that keeps 
those communities alive. It provides transportation, water 
transportation for over $1 trillion worth of goods in this country.
  Neither of those amendments, or many others, were allowed under this 
rule.
  My home State of Oregon has the highest unemployment in the country, 
and our coastal communities have been very hard hit by the economic 
downturn. These communities depend on fishing and tourism, and without 
dredging and other harbor safety measures undertaken by the Army Corps 
of Engineers, these industries would be further devastated. This budget 
sets the wrong priorities for our Nation, and I encourage my colleagues 
to oppose this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from 
Texas that I have no further requests for time, and if he is prepared 
to yield back his time, I am certainly prepared to yield back my time. 
Perhaps the 6 hours of debate took all the steam out of what we have 
been talking about here.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman that we do have some 
speakers and one is here currently.

[[Page H1490]]

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, budgets are about priorities, and I believe that the 
priorities outlined in the Republican budget plan are not the 
priorities of the people of this country.
  This Republican budget is a blueprint to protect tax cuts for the 
wealthy at the expense of everything else. I disagree very strongly 
with the approach being taken by the Republican leadership. This budget 
plan is bad for America. It is bad for our most vulnerable citizens. It 
is bad for our economy. It is bad for our war on terrorism, and it is 
bad for our future. The Republican budget resolution will inflict 
terrible damage on American families.
  This budget cuts $358 million from health programs in the year 2005. 
It cuts environmental protection programs by $6.4 billion over 5 years. 
It fails to provide needed funding for veterans' health care. It 
underfunds homeland security programs. It fails to include the promised 
funding for No Child Left Behind. It makes college more expensive for 
our families by freezing the maximum Pell grant and cutting funding for 
Perkins loans.
  I am also dismayed that this budget fails to provide adequate funding 
for our food aid programs around the world. Winning the war on 
terrorism will take more than dropping bombs on people. Food aid is one 
of the best things we can do to boost the image of the United States in 
other countries. It is a way to win friends and to demonstrate to the 
world what we are for. This budget goes in exactly the opposite 
direction, and it is wrong.
  And it is outrageous that the Republican leadership refuses to talk 
straight with the American people about the issue of the budget 
deficit. For better or worse, the budget resolutions presented in this 
House have become partisan documents. As I said, perhaps better than 
anything else, these budgets reflect the priorities of the two parties.
  I understand that, for the most part, the Republican leadership 
believes that every problem can be solved by throwing bigger and bigger 
tax cuts at the wealthiest Americans and corporations. But it used to 
be that the Republican Party also stood for fiscal responsibility.
  I am a liberal Democrat, but I must say that I learned a lot during 
the debates of the 1980s and early 1990s. I learned that controlling 
the deficit is not only important to a strong economy, it is essential. 
And I give a lot of credit to some of the people on the other side of 
the aisle and especially to the Blue Dog Democrats, who were among the 
first to bang the drum of deficit reduction.
  What happened to the Republican Party? Where have all those people 
gone who used to care about the deficit? This Republican budget 
resolution will increase the deficit by $247 billion over the next 5 
years. I have to believe that whether one is a liberal or a moderate or 
a conservative, they will find this budget fiscally irresponsible.

                              {time}  1045

  And it has huge consequences, not only for future generations, but 
also for the most important task of this generation: winning the global 
war on terrorism. It becomes harder and harder to take the offensive 
against terrorism when we are mired in debt, and the Committee on the 
Budget refuses to include any budget process reform like the so-called 
pay-as-you-go rules to deal with the problem.
  Now we are told that how we pay for things is a separate discussion, 
and we will have a debate on pay-as-you-go mechanisms next week or the 
week after or a month later or whenever. Well, that makes no sense. 
Imagine if you said, I want to buy a $1 million house today, but I will 
figure out how to pay for it next month; the bank would throw you out 
on the street. But that is the way the Republican leadership has chosen 
to operate.
  By contrast, the Democratic budget proposal offers real budget 
enforcement rules. In fact, all of the alternative proposals do so: 
restoring pay-as-you-go rules to both spending and tax cuts. We provide 
for a strong defense in homeland security, including putting our troops 
first. We keep our commitment on No Child Left Behind, fund veterans 
health programs, health care, environmental protection, and housing; 
and Democrats target our tax relief to people who need it the most, 
those in the middle, including extending the child tax credit and 
marriage penalty relief.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, budgets are about priorities, and the 
Republican budget proposal before us has the wrong priorities for 
America. It is that simple. I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
Republican budget and to support a more thoughtful and realistic 
approach, and I would also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee on the Budget reported out a 
budget that failed to address one of the most critical problems facing 
our Nation, and that is our national debt. I offered an amendment in 
committee that would have included the pay-go rules in that budget, 
pay-go on both revenue and spending legislation. It was defeated, 
sadly, on a straight party-line vote. Not one single Republican 
supported it, not even those who had previously and publicly said that 
they supported extending pay-go to both revenue and spending.
  Yesterday I brought the same amendment to the Committee on Rules; 
and, again, the majority voted against the extension of the pay-go 
rules. And in doing so, they denied this House the opportunity to 
debate one of the most successful budget enforcement mechanisms that we 
have at our disposal.
  Today we are over $7 trillion in debt. By the chairman's own numbers, 
we will be over $10.4 trillion in debt by the year 2009. Pay-go would 
allow us to rein in control over our debt and our deficits. Pay-go 
would mandate that we actually pay for the legislation that we pass. 
Pay-go would force the Congress to recognize that there are fiscal 
consequences to our actions. That is a wake-up call that we desperately 
need because, lately, Congress has been pretending that there are no 
consequences. We have been spending more than we have. We have been 
cutting taxes with abandon. We have squandered a $256 billion surplus 
like it was monopoly money. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a 
get-out-of-debt-free card, we cannot pass go, and we cannot collect $7 
trillion.
  Now, our surpluses are gone and our deficits are predicted to be $521 
billion, a $700 billion reversal in just 3 short years. That is not a 
surprise. We have been living far beyond our means, and a deficit 
explosion was the inevitable result.
  The surprise is that some folks still do not believe it is a problem, 
and it is the unwillingness of these few people to acknowledge this 
problem that is preventing the rest of us from fixing the problem.
  Our colleagues in the Senate get it. They see that a $521 billion 
deficit does matter. They realize that it is not a good idea to finance 
tax cuts and spending increases by letting places like China, Japan, 
and the OPEC nations buy almost $800 billion of our debt. They 
understand that their voters did not send them here to come up with 
fancy budget tricks that amount to little more than shell games and 
smoke and mirrors. Our colleagues in the Senate voted by a bipartisan 
majority to include an amendment identical to mine in their budget 
resolution: pay-go on both tax and spending legislation. The House 
needs to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to hold ourselves to the same budgeting 
standards that we hold every family in this country. Whether we are 
increasing spending or decreasing revenue, we need to pay for it. We 
need to pay as we go.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this fiscally 
irresponsible rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Budget had a very extensive markup

[[Page H1491]]

session; I think we had roll call votes on something like 25 particular 
items to add to the budget in particular areas. So we had a vigorous 
debate on that. Yesterday, in the Committee on Rules, there was again 
vigorous debate on the amendments that were offered.
  It has always been the tradition when we deal with the budget 
document, which I might add is the broad blueprint for our 
appropriation process that is coming up later on, but it has always 
been the tradition when we do the budget document that the amendments 
that we make in order are full substitutes.
  The gentleman spoke about his concern of the pay-go issue, and one of 
the substitutes that we made in order, the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget substitute, the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt), has precisely that issue within the substitute. So we 
will have a vigorous debate on that. The Committee on Rules made in 
order 40 minutes for each of those substitutes. I might add that three 
of the substitutes that we made in order come from the other side of 
the aisle, and one of those substitutes comes from our side of the 
aisle.
  So we will, I think, have a vigorous debate on the issue that the 
previous speaker just brought up, and I think it will be a healthy 
debate; and then we will let the will of the House make that 
determination.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point 
out to the gentleman from Washington, my friend, that, first of all, 
the Blue Dog budget has the pay-go provision in it. It would just make 
for a much more vigorous and a much more honest debate if we could, in 
fact, debate the very simple and basic idea that we pay for our bills; 
we do not just pass bills, we pay for them.
  The fact of the matter is there is not one of us on either side of 
this aisle that could go back home and make that argument to our 
constituents where we would not understand that. They are not 
interested in the political inside-the-beltway mumbo jumbo; they know 
that we need to pay our bills, pay as we go, and that should be before 
this House to debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule 
that will allow the House to vote on the Thompson-Moore pay-as-you-go 
amendment. This amendment would require that any new mandatory spending 
or tax cuts must be paid for. Mr. Speaker, the amendment was offered in 
the Committee on Rules last night, but was defeated on a straight 
party-line vote.
  For some reason, the Republican leadership is afraid to allow Members 
the opportunity to vote on this responsible and reasonable proposal. 
Three years ago the budget deficit was shrinking and the economy was 
robust and growing; but, as Members have stated today, the leadership 
of the Republican Party has turned a balanced budget into record 
deficit spending. And here they go again, pushing a dangerous budget 
that will spiral the deficit out of control.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I just do not see how we can continue this 
reckless, unchecked growth in our national debt. I believe deficit 
spending is a serious threat to our economy. The numbers are so high 
and out of control, they have almost lost their full impact. 
Republicans are throwing trillions of dollars around like it is pocket 
change. But it is not pocket change, Mr. Speaker; it is a staggering 
number, and it can crush any chance our Nation has of an economic 
recovery.
  We must put something in place to halt the out-of-control deficit, 
and I think the Thompson-Moore pay-as-you-go amendment is a step in the 
right direction. A ``no'' vote on the previous question will let the 
American people know once and for all which Members stand in favor of 
reduced deficits, responsible spending, and fiscal restraint.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials at this point in the Record, and I 
urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

  Previous Question for Rule for H. Res. 574, H. Con. Res. 393--FY05 
                      Concurrent Budget Resolution

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order as though 
     printed as the first amendment in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules if offered by Representative Thompson of California 
     or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 60 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

Amendment to H. Con. Res. 393, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Thompson of 
                               California

       At the end of title IV, add the following new section:

     SEC. __. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER IN THE HOUSE.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     to consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that 
     would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget 
     deficit for any of the following periods:
       (1) The first year covered by the most recently adopted 
     concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (2) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the 
     most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (3) The period of the 5 fiscal years following the first 5 
     fiscal years covered in the most recently adopted concurrent 
     resolution on the budget.
       (b) Direct-Spending Legislation.--
       (1) Definition.--For purposes of this section and except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), the term ``direct-spending 
     legislation'' means any bill, joint resolution, amendment, 
     motion, or conference report that affects direct spending as 
     that term is defined by, and interpreted for purposes of, the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (2) Exclusion.--For purposes of this section, the terms 
     ``direct-spending legislation'' and ``revenue legislation'' 
     do not include--
       (A) any concurrent resolution on the budget; or
       (B) any provision of legislation that affects the full 
     funding of, and continuation of, the deposit insurance 
     guarantee commitment in effect on the date of enactment of 
     the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.
       (c) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and 
     revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis 
     of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume to just remind Members that the Committee on Rules made 
in order three substitutes, and I erred when I said the Spratt 
amendment was only for 40 minutes; it is actually for 60 minutes. The 
other ones are for 40 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this closed rule and the underlying resolution. Yesterday afternoon, 35 
amendments were offered during the Rules Committee hearing. Democrats 
offered amendments to increase funding for the No Child Left Behind 
Act, veterans' healthcare, job training programs, environmental 
cleanups, military survivor benefits, port security, first responders, 
affordable housing, and many other important domestic priorities.
  However, of the 35 amendments offered, only 4 are made in order by 
this rule. As the current chairman of the Rules Committee once said, 
``If a rule isn't open, then it's closed.'' By the definition of the 
gentleman from California, this rule is closed, and I oppose it.
  As my colleagues have already noted, we live in a trying time when 
fiscal constraints are overwhelming. The ongoing costs associated with 
an unprovoked war in Iraq have only added to the Bush recession, which 
the National Bureau for Economic Research has noted first began in 
March 2001. Our problems were exacerbated when the Bush tax cuts were 
signed into law. These tax cuts squandered raging surplus and have 
driven America's economy into the ground.
  The Republican budget proposal is a reckless disregard of the 
obvious. It further increases our deficit and abandons the social 
contract this body has signed with the American people.
  The Republican budget neglects America's children, seniors, and 
veterans. It underfunds our domestic priorities by billions, including 
veterans benefits, our education system, and perhaps most importantly 
during this dangerous time in history, homeland security.
  To pay for their tax cuts, Republicans lay the groundwork for $2.2 
billion in cuts to the Medicaid program. With these cuts, states will

[[Page H1492]]

be forced to cover shortfalls in Federal commitments. At the same time, 
millions of America's poorest will find themselves homeless and 
uninsured with nobody to turn to.
  Making a bad budget worse, the Republican proposal has the audacity 
to suggest that spending in Iraq will not be necessary beyond the 
upcoming fiscal year. Nothing could be further from the truth. This 
budget is as dishonest as the President's claims which got us into Iraq 
in the first place.

  Even though I will oppose their budget, at the least the Republic 
Study Committee is honest about what it's doing.
  Consideration of the budget resolution provides both parties with the 
opportunity to outline their priorities. Democrats will come to the 
floor today and offer our priorities to the American people. Our 
proposal is fiscally and socially responsible, while maintaining all of 
our international and domestic commitments.
  Over the next 5 years, the Democratic budget provides nearly $10 
billion more than Republicans for appropriated education programs, $6.6 
billion more for veterans' programs, and $5 billion more for homeland 
security.
  We provide a realistic short- and long-term outlook for America's 
budget, and we ensure that domestic spending remains consistent with 
the costs of inflation. Democrats do all of this at the same time we 
balance the budget and cut the deficit.
  Additionally, Members of the Congressional Black Caucus will offer 
our own budget. Our proposal is equally responsible and realistic. With 
increases in funding for America's schools, veterans, healthcare, and 
job training programs, the CBC budget reflects the conscious of the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, today's debate is far less about politics than it is 
about priorities. After 6 hours of debate on the majority's budget 
proposal, it is clearer than ever: Republican priorities are not 
American priorities.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying 
resolution, and vote ``yes'' on all Democratic substitutes.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I urge all 
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting 
House Resolution 574, which provides for the consideration of the 
fiscal year 2005 budget resolution. H. Res. 574 is a fair, traditional 
rule for consideration of the annual budget resolution. The Rules 
Committee listened to hours of testimony yesterday and we have focused 
on making in order a selection of amendments submitted in the nature of 
a substitute. The rule before the House today provides for the 
consideration of four amendments in the nature of a substitute--three 
of which are Democrat substitutes--including the Blue Dog budget, the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget, the Democrat Leadership's and the 
Republican Study Committee budget.
  With respect to H. Con. Res. 393, the underlying resolution, I want 
to commend Mr. Nussle, chairman of the Budget Committee, for all of his 
effort in bringing this very carefully-balanced resolution to the House 
floor. This budget reflects our commitment to the Nation's principles 
of strength, growth, and opportunity--to fund our Armed Forces and 
protect the people of the United States; to create jobs and strengthen 
the American economy; and to strengthen the foundation of this Nation 
that provides all Americans with unlimited opportunities, all while 
ensuring long-term fiscal responsibility.
  H. Con. Res. 393 is an important step in the right direction toward 
balancing the budget. This resolution is designed to cut the deficit in 
half over the next 4 years. In addition, it protects President Bush's 
2001 and 2003 tax relief proposals in order to ensure that the economy 
will keep moving forward and create more jobs.
  The Budget Committee's resolution is in line with President Bush's FY 
2005 budget request and seeks to hold the line on higher spending for 
most domestic discretionary programs, while increasing defense and 
homeland security spending to protect our citizens.
  Once the budget resolution is passed, our next challenge is making 
sure that the 13 regular FY 2005 appropriations bills are within this 
budget's limits. It is extremely important for Congress to ensure our 
fiscal policy is sound in order to allow the Federal Reserve to 
maintain its current monetary policies, which can collectively serve to 
encourage job creation and growth in the economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may 
proceed to debate the four substitute amendments as well as H. Con. 
Res. 393.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 
15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on: adopting House concurrent resolution 574, if ordered; 
H.R. 3786, H.R. 2993, and H.R. 254.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 201, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 84]

                               YEAS--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--201

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha

[[Page H1493]]


     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Abercrombie
     Boehner
     Clay
     Davis (IL)
     Hoeffel
     McInnis
     Pence
     Price (NC)
     Tauzin
     Weldon (PA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). The Chair is 
advised that some of the voting stations may have been reset during 
this vote. Members should take care to confirm their vote, and the 
voting machines will be kept open until Members have a chance to vote 
and to confirm their vote.

                              {time}  1123

  Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Mr. WYNN, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mrs. 
CAPPS, Mr. GEPHARDT, Mr. FATTAH, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. 
CORRINE BROWN of Florida, and Messrs. BERRY, BALLANCE, CONYERS, ENGEL 
and WEXLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________