[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.
____________________