[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 19, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3358-H3369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. CON. RES. 95, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE 
                      BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 649, I call up 
the conference report on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
95) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States 
Government for fiscal year 2005 and including the appropriate budgetary 
levels for fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 649, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Tuesday, May 18, 2004.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).


                             General Leave

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on S. Con. Res. 95.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank members of the Committee on 
the Budget on both sides of the aisle that have worked throughout the 
process this year. I wish to thank my ranking member and friend, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  We will embark today on a vigorous debate. I have a feeling that we 
will differ quite a lot on the policy and the issues before us faced in 
the budget, but we do so in a cheerful manner, one that is with full 
respect; and I have enormous respect for my very able friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  I also want to thank our staff. Rich Meade and the entire Committee 
on the Budget staff, they have worked very, very diligently on the 
majority side; and Tom Kahn and the minority staff have also done that. 
They prepare Members, not only on the committee but throughout our 
conferences and caucuses, so we are prepared for this debate today and 
throughout the year, and they deserve our support as we move forward 
and our appreciation.

[[Page H3359]]

  As we started crafting the budget this year, there was certainly 
really no lack of naysayers who said that getting a budget passed this 
year would probably be next to impossible. There were way too many 
challenges, people said, facing our country, too many conflicting 
interests, too much pressure because of the upcoming elections.
  All of those things are certainly true. It is true we are dealing 
with a number of other challenging issues, such as the ongoing 
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the war against terrorism in 
general on a global basis.
  But we will prevail as a Nation. Regardless of the debate that we 
have today on budgets and taxes and pay-as-you-go and the national 
debt, we will prevail as a Nation, because it is not about budgets in 
the end. It is not about taxes in the end. It is about an American 
spirit that will not die, because we believe in freedom, and that is 
freedom that is given to us as a little seed planted in our hearts when 
we are born and something that blossoms throughout our lives. We want 
to share that with the world, and we believe that by sharing it with 
the world, we will have a safer place in which to live.
  I am also happy to report that we have prevailed, despite a myriad of 
critics who said it could not be done, that we would not even get a 
conference report agreement between the House and the Senate. We were 
able to do that. So today in the House we will complete the first step 
of what are some of our most fundamental duties.
  I am extremely proud of this budget and what it stands for. I would 
like to particularly thank our leadership, our Speaker, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); our majority leader, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay); our deputy whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Cantor); and our whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt); as well 
as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce). All of the leadership team 
worked hard, standing our ground for the budget principles that we knew 
must be done.
  And what was that must-do list for this year's budget? Clearly, this 
budget had to provide for the defense and homeland security of our 
Nation. That is job one. There is no excuse not to complete the most 
important job that this country requires of a Nation in order for it to 
be free, and that is the defense of our country.
  Second, this budget had to continue to support a program of economic 
growth for our country, as well as continue our commitment to a host of 
critical domestic programs, such as veterans benefits, education, 
health care, and prescription drugs for seniors. And we had to do all 
of this while reining in our spending and working to reduce the 
deficits we incurred while responding to extraordinary circumstances 
over the past few years.
  Getting a consensus on what was exactly right or correct was not 
easy. It has been very difficult. Every single person has their own 
idea of what a perfect budget would look like. This is not a perfect 
budget, and I dare say my friends on the other side will remind me of 
that time and time again today; but it is what is doable at a time of 
extreme circumstances in our Nation's history.
  I have heard people say at time of war we ought to do this; at time 
of economic challenge we ought to do that; we ought to fund priorities. 
All of those are true. But we have never faced all of them at the exact 
same time: to have a downturn in the economy, be faced with two wars, a 
global response to terrorism, the most unbelievable tragic event of 
terrorism facing our Nation. All of this happening at the exact same 
time is something that has never happened to our Nation.

                              {time}  1900

  So these are extraordinary circumstances and we will respond. Let me 
tell you the guiding principles of this budget of how we are going to 
respond.
  First is strength. We are free as a Nation as long as we are able to 
defend our freedom at home and abroad. And so the first principle is 
strength.
  Second is growth. We must continue to grow. Our policies are helping 
to boost the economy. We do not want to grow government. We want to 
grow the earning capacity of people. We want to grow the ability to 
create jobs. We want to grow the entrepreneurial spirit in our country. 
That is what we want to grow. And we have already seen, the last 6 
months have been the fastest growth in 20 years as a result of the 
policies put forward by our President and by this Congress. And we 
believe that must continue.
  Business investment is up. Unemployment is falling, and it is lower 
now than it was on average for the 1970s, the 1980s or the 1990s. And 
most important, we are seeing jobs being created.
  More Americans are working today than at any time in American 
history; 1.1 million jobs have been created over the last 8 months 
alone. So to remain the most prosperous superpower, our economy must be 
able to continue to grow.
  Finally, opportunity. Strength, growth and, finally, opportunity. 
America's continued greatness comes from the unlimited opportunities 
that our American freedom provides. We are all for that. And we must 
continue to encourage those opportunities for a better life for every 
American citizen. Government certainly has a role in that.
  Those were the guiding principles of our budget that we passed here 
in the House, and they remain the guiding principles as we work through 
this conference agreement.
  I also want to talk to you about a few principles with regard to this 
budget that were included in the final conference agreement. First, 
there will be no tax increase. And let me be clear: If you vote ``yes'' 
on this budget, you are saying we do not need a tax increase. We do not 
want an automatic tax increase to happen, and we do not believe that 
this is a time for Americans to dig deeper in their pockets in order to 
deal with challenges we should be facing here in Washington.
  Tax increases should not be the solution. And so if you vote ``no'' 
on this budget, be aware you are voting to automatically allow tax 
increases to occur this year.
  That is what this budget will do. It will prevent an automatic tax 
increase. So by voting against it, an automatic tax increase will 
occur.
  Second, on spending, our constituents have told us time and time 
again that we have got to rein in spending. We have got to control the 
waste, fraud and abuse in Washington. And certainly that is often in 
the eye of the beholder; but we believe that it is time to go through 
our departments, through our categories and look at ways to rein in 
spending. We cannot begin to address reducing the budget deficit 
without holding the current rate of spending growth.
  This is what our spending growth has looked like in the past few 
years, a lot of growth. Most of that from necessary demands, but we 
cannot sustain that spending growth. So we have looked for ways to 
control spending throughout the budget. This budget calls for holding 
the line on nondefense, nonhomeland security discretionary spending. 
For the first time, this Congress, certainly in my tenure here and I 
daresay in the tenure of all Members of this body, this will be the 
first opportunity for you to vote to freeze or hold the line on 
nonsecurity spending in Congress.
  Let us talk about the war. The President did not, when he submitted 
his budget back in February, contemplate the true cost of war because 
they were unknown at that time. Our budget has taken that into account.
  We know, without question, that there will be costs for the ongoing 
war and that this budget will have an effect as a result. Do we know 
the exact amount? No. That is not known right now to the Congress, to 
the Defense Department, to the President.
  We can speculate, and we have put into this budget a placeholder that 
says $50 billion, based on the estimate that we have for this year, is 
an appropriate figure to begin planning for the 2005 costs of the war.
  And thank goodness we did that, because right after we passed our 
budget, we found out that at least $25 billion will be necessary to 
fund the ongoing conflict during 2005. So it is not with precision that 
we know this amount, but it is something we need to plan for in this, 
and this budget accomplishes that.
  This budget does all of this, if we follow it, to get us back to 
balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. We have to start somewhere.

[[Page H3360]]

  There will be people who come to the floor today who say, you know, 
this is only a 1-year budget. Well, yeah, that is what we always pass. 
Last year we passed a budget; it had a lot of years on it, but we only 
followed it for a year. Then we renegotiated it this year. We will to 
the same next year and the year after. In fact, every year I have been 
here we have gone year to year to year with regard to taxes, spending, 
rules, appropriations, all of the different issues that face us today.
  And so we are coming forward to present to you today a 1-year budget. 
It complies with the Budget Act. You will see 5 years' worth of 
projections for the amounts of money, but this is a 1-year budget. And 
we believe if we can get this right and if we can hold the House and 
the other body and the President to this plan, it puts us on a path to 
not only controlling the deficit, but getting us back to a balanced 
budget.
  This budget is the first step in accomplishing that but it only works 
if we stick to it. This is our next major challenge, I daresay, to 
begin to get past all of the excuses of the last few years, although 
they are appropriate, certainly important rationale for how we have 
gotten here.
  But we need to move forward. This allows us to do that today. So we 
need to vote ``yes'' in order to move this plan forward. But let me be 
clear: If you vote no, as I said before, you vote for an automatic tax 
increase, you vote to cut veterans' spending because we increased 
veterans' spending here over the President's amount by $1.2 billion; 
you are not supporting the troops to the tune of $50 billion 
contemplating the war costs.
  Sure, you can say we will vote for the appropriations bill, but this 
plans for it in a budget. And I also suggest, you are not doing what 
you need to do to plan for defense and homeland security of our Nation.
  This puts us on a track to fiscal responsibility. It meet our needs 
and the strengths of our country and growth for the economy and 
opportunity for the future. And I ask my colleagues to support the 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and 
I work together well, and I have the greatest regard for him, but let 
me put it the way it is. He is trying to put the best face on a bad 
situation.
  What we have got here is a new high for the budget deficit and a new 
low for the budget process. For the first time in 20 years, for the 
first time since the 1980s we have a budget that only goes out 1 year. 
Ever since the Budget Act was adopted, the principle has been that you 
will run out your numbers 5 years so that we can see the implications 
of tax cuts and tax increases, spending cuts and spending increases, 
spread over a reasonable period of time. Not in this budget: 1 year for 
the first time in 20 years.
  Now, what does that allow you to do? It allows you to dodge the 
deficit. It keeps you from having to show on a multiyear basis how you 
will get from a $300-$400 billion deficit to something that is half 
that size to a respectable, sustainable number.
  If you only take it out 1 year, there is no way in the world that we 
will ever get our arms around the deficit in that period of time. So it 
exonerates you from presenting any kind of process or plan to get where 
we all know where we have got to go, and that is to a much lower 
deficit.
  Another thing: When you do not put real numbers in the outyears, in 
2006, 2007, 2008, it allows you to reduce the President's request and 
not acknowledge what you are actually doing. By our calculations, when 
we look at the numbers that are on the chart contained in this budget 
resolution, this budget resolution provides $122 billion less for 
defense than the President requests or projects for himself over that 
same period of time.
  This much is clear: Vote for this and you are voting for a huge 
deficit by the acknowledgment of the drastic $367 billion. And while 
they have included $50 billion for supplemental spending in Iraq and 
Afghanistan next year, I think that is at least $25 billion short of 
where we will really be. Add that 25 to the 367; you get to 392. Take 
out the Social Security surplus because it should not be included, and 
the deficit in the basic budget is $552 billion.
  That is what you are voting for if you vote for this budget 
resolution, a deficit of $552 billion.
  Now, when you run a deficit like that, you stack up debt, and once 
again we will have to raise the debt ceiling; and one of the key 
provisions of this bill buried beneath all of the line items is a 
provision which would automatically spin off an increase in the debt 
ceiling of $690 million--$690 billion. It will take the debt of the 
United States up to $8.1 trillion.
  It is hard to get my tongue around those numbers.
  When Mr. Bush came to office, the statutory debt ceiling of the 
United States was $5.9 trillion. Adopt this budget resolution and we 
will raise that ceiling by $2.2 trillion to $8.1 trillion. That is how 
much we have had to increase the debt ceiling, $2 trillion in order to 
accommodate the fiscal policies of the Bush administration.
  Now, we have got record deficits. We have record debt. That is bad 
enough, but even worse, even worse in this budget resolution, there is 
no plan, no process and no prospect, not even a PAYGO rule for 
balancing the budget or anyone issuing the deficit over a period of 
time. All we have here, after a lot of huffing and puffing, is a puny 
version of the PAYGO rule that House Democrats and House Republican on 
two occasions in the 1990s adopted to apply to both tax cuts and 
spending increases on the entitlement side. All we have got here is a 
1-year extension that applies only in the Senate, no application 
whatsoever in the House. That is all we have got.
  The gentleman says if you do not vote for this, it could impair the 
recovery. Well, let me say, Mr. Greenspan warned us only a week or two 
ago that this recovery we are beginning to enjoy may be short lived 
unless we come to grips with this critical problem, and that is 
mounting, never-ending deficits that these budgets are producing.
  So the thing that is incumbent upon us now is not to kick the can 
down the road, is not just to pass something for the sake of saying we 
passed the budget resolution, we fixed the 302(a) number. We can go 
ahead with our appropriation bills. We need a plan; we need a process. 
We need to deal with this deficit now, and this budget resolution does 
not do it. That is why we should defeat it, send it back to conference 
and do it right.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just respond quickly and say, and I forgot this part, we are 
reducing the budget deficit by $100 billion. So I understand there is 
concern out there. We are taking $100 billion off the top as a result 
of this budget because we are planning our work and we are sticking to 
our plan, and it is a good plan.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I ask this question for myself and my colleagues, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  I note on Wednesday, March 31, with 299 votes, the House passed House 
Resolution 581 regarding pay comparability for Federal employees. That 
language is not included in the resolution.
  Is it the gentleman's understanding that the language of that 
resolution is the position of the House?
  Mr. NUSSLE. It is my understanding. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), a very valued member of the committees.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time and commend him on his patience and persistence that was required 
to have this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. In my view, 
the first job of the Federal government is to defend the country, and 
there is certainly no greater priority in this budget than protecting 
America.
  When it comes to helping make the country strong, we in Congress have 
an

[[Page H3361]]

important role to play. Part of our role involves the other major bill 
we are working on this week, the defense authorization bill. But I 
believe that passing this budget today also puts in place an essential 
building block that helps make sure we do our job in keeping and 
improving on a strong America.
  This budget fully funds the President's request for military and 
homeland security. It allocates $420 billion for the national security 
function. Included in that is $402 billion for the military, and on top 
of that is $50 billion that the chairman just talked about for the 
ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Once that allocation is translated into the various programs, we will 
have increased basic pay for soldiers in the military, 21 percent over 
the past 3 years.

                              {time}  1915

  We will have increased personnel funding 59 percent since 2001. 
Operation and maintenance will have increased 55 percent; procurement 
up 43 percent; R&D funding up 76 percent over the past 3 years.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, we will have provided everything the Pentagon 
has asked for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and then some.
  On homeland security, this budget allocates $33.4 billion, including 
$31 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. This is nearly 
double what those agencies were receiving in 2001, nearly double. The 
budget carves out $2.5 billion in advance funding for Bioshield, the 
effort to deal with that threat which many people view as the most 
dangerous to us, biological warfare.
  But as I said when the House first considered this budget, we could 
slap a homeland security label on the whole Federal budget and still 
not be perfectly safe; but passing this budget today allows the other 
committees to do their work on the detailed programs and make sure that 
in Congress we stand up and do our job on homeland security and 
defense, supporting the men and women who are on the front lines every 
day protecting our lives and our freedom. It deserves our support.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  This is not a serious attempt to deal with a serious problem. This is 
a chart that shows the mess we have gotten ourselves into. It is the 
deficit since the Vietnam War, Reagan, and Bush. The Clinton 
administration cleaned up the mess, and here we are now with a huge 
deficit.
  If you run up deficits, you have got to pay out interest on the 
national debt. This is the interest on the national debt we were 
projected to pay when this administration came in. This is the interest 
on the national debt we are going to have to pay for messing up the 
deficit, $300 billion additional interest on the national debt. $300 
billion at $30,000 each, that is enough to hire every unemployed person 
in the country, over 10 million people.
  The bill presented today is $367 billion more in debt. The chairman 
is right, we are not digging into our pockets. We are digging into our 
grandchildren's pockets.
  This bill ignores the PAYGO rules of fiscal responsibility. It is a 
1-year budget rather than the traditional 5- or 10-year budget. So a 
lot of the problems are hidden. It is not a serious attempt to deal 
with a serious problem.
  We should reject the conference report.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is remaining 
on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 24 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time and let the other 
side catch up a little bit.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report.
  In the 2000 campaign, President Bush declared that he was opposed to 
nation-building. Well, he has succeeded in keeping his commitment. When 
you leave $3 trillion of debt, a budget with $500 billion in deficit, 3 
million Americans who have lost their jobs, 44 million Americans 
without health care, two more million Americans in poverty, George Bush 
can say he has kept his commitment against nation-building. Who knew it 
was America he was talking about.
  This budget shows that you cannot finance three wars with three tax 
cuts and get a different result and continue the same policies by 
putting your foot on the accelerator on the same policy. You will get 
the same result: 3 million Americans without jobs, $3 trillion added to 
the Nation's debt, $500 billion in additional debt on top of that, and 
no ability to deal with the health care crisis and the college tuition 
crisis that middle-class families are facing.
  We need new direction, a new set of policies to put middle-class 
families and their economic interests and the interests of their 
families at the heart of our economic policy. We need to break with the 
policies that continue to literally reward wealth at the expense of 
work.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) for the purposes of a unanimous consent request.
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past three years, fiscal recklessness has 
reigned over this House. Record surpluses have been molded into record 
deficits. Sensible spending has been overtaken by a bloated budget. 
Discipline and prosperity have been shoved aside for irresponsibility 
and mismanagement. Now comes today's budget conference report--an 
opportunity to acknowledge Federal misspending by establishing budget 
enforcement rules for, at the very least, the next 5 years. Instead, 
``pay-as-you-go'' has been adopted for 1 year only, but there is no way 
to untangle this fiscal mess in 1 year. Perhaps our friends on the 
other side of the aisle realized that the voting public, in fact, 
embraces fiscal discipline. Perhaps they want to give the appearance of 
a balanced budget to score points in November. Unfortunately for our 
country, mere appearances won't fix this mess, and they won't create 
jobs. This thinly-veiled attempt at election-year discipline is far too 
little and far too late. Is our government's budget better off today 
than it was 4 years ago? Not by a long shot, and this conference 
reports is not going to do anything to change that any time soon. And 
that's why I am voting ``no.''
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget conference report is another step backward 
in the action in reverse the Republican leadership and the White House 
have been conducting on transportation funding over the last 6 months.
  Last fall, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
introduced a bipartisan bill at $375 billion over 6 years, but to 
appease the Bush administration, the House leadership jawboned that 
number down to $350 billion, then 325, then 300, finally $284 billion, 
the number which the House passed by an overwhelming vote; but that was 
not low enough for the White House.
  Now the conference report cuts $11 billion from the will of the House 
to $273 billion. The White House still insists on its $256 billion 
figure. That means not one dollar more for highway and transit, not one 
new job compared to the current TEA-21 law. That is a formula for 
gridlock, congestion, and economic stagnation. We should reject this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. Con. Res. 95, the 
Budget Resolution Conference Report for FY2005. Mr. Speaker, let me 
briefly focus on the highway and transit funding assumed in the 
Republican Budget.
  Last November, 73 Members of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure introduced a bipartisan bill to authorize $375 billion 
for the highway, transit, and transportation safety programs for the 
next 6 years. We developed these program funding levels based upon the 
Department of Transportation's report assessing the highway and transit 
needs of our Nation. In March, the Committee unanimously approved that 
bill. That bill would have

[[Page H3362]]

stemmed the tide of crippling congestion that is overcoming our 
metropolitan areas.
  However, the Bush Administration adamantly opposes additional 
infrastructure investment, and the House Republican Leadership made 
clear that the bill would never see the light of day. We have seen a 
Republican ``auction in reverse'' ever since.
  In February, the Senate, by a vote of 76-21, passed its bill 
authorizing $318 billion for surface transportation infrastructure. The 
White House threatened a veto.
  To further appease the Bush Administration, the House Republican 
Leadership forced the Transportation Committee to cut this 
infrastructure investment even more--to $284 billion. In April, the 
House considered that down-sized bill and it passed overwhelmingly, by 
a vote of 357-65. It still wasn't good enough for the White House and 
it again threatened a veto.
  Now, the Republican Leadership, pursuant to the Budget Resolution 
Conference Report, cuts this critical infrastructure investment even 
further--to $273 billion. The Republican Budget assumes $273 billion 
for TEA-21 reauthorization, which is $11 billion less than the $284 
billion provided by H.R. 3550 (TEA LU) as passed by the House just last 
month. The Republican Budget is $45 billion less than the Senate-passed 
funding level.
  The reverse auction continues and I fear it will not end until 
infrastructure investment is cut to President Bush's proposal. The 
Administration is adamantly insisting that total investment be no more 
than $256 billion over 6 years. And let me be clear on what the Bush 
Administration bill provides: not one more dollar for highway and 
transit infrastructure, not one new job. Compared to where we are 
today, the Administration's bill provides no increase for highway 
funding and no increase for transit funding for the next five years--
not a single additional dollar. As a result, not one additional job 
will be created by this zero-growth investment.
  The result of the White House's absolute intransigence on its 
entirely unacceptable proposal is traffic gridlock in our communities 
and legislative deadlock in Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, our country has worked too hard to put the current 
transportation system in place to allow this administration to squander 
previous investments made over generations and allow that system to 
deteriorate.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on S. Con. Res. 95.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and ranking 
member of the Committee on the Budget from South Carolina for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, every minute, the Bush administration spends $991,000 
more than it takes in, basically $1 million in deficit every single 
minute. We have lost control of the budget; and this is not going to 
give us control, even though this purportedly is what it is supposed to 
do.
  One of the things that it does, and the American people need to know 
this, is that it increases the debt limit by $690 billion to over $8 
trillion. We were told that the last time we increased the debt limit 
to $6.9 trillion that we would not have to do it again until 2008 
because of the President's tax cuts, and here we are right back again 
increasing the debt limit to the $8.1 trillion. This is a bad budget 
resolution.
  It used to be that we had a 10-year window. We could look out to see 
what this budget was going to do over 10 years; and then to hide the 
real deficit creative aspect of this budget, we reduced that to 5 
years. Now none of us could have imagined that we would actually bring 
a budget resolution to the floor limited to one single year.
  This is a bad budget resolution. There is no provision for the 
future. It digs the deficit even deeper, and then we do not even have 
PAYGO rules that apply. This budget is out of control and deserves to 
be defeated, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and then I will 
let them continue.
  But I want people to listen. Listen. We have got half the speakers on 
that side saying, worry about the deficit and debt, and the other half 
coming like the gentleman from Minnesota saying we are not spending 
enough, we are not spending enough, we are not spending enough. So is 
it the deficit or is it spending? My goodness, my colleagues need to 
get their message straight.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have before us today is not a serious document. 
Putting together a budget should be a reflection of the Nation's 
priorities. It should be a long-term road map for where we want this 
country to go and how we expect to get there.
  This budget shows that we are not taking this process seriously. This 
is a 1-year budget providing no commitments or details after the first 
year. A failure to detail future plans masks the consequences of these 
policy decisions in future years.
  This budget shows that the majority is not taking the deficit 
seriously, and the results of this budget will seriously tax our 
children and grandchildren.
  Deficits do matter. We cannot just continue to run up massive 
deficits and add billions to the national debt.
  This budget shows that we have no commitment to our future 
generations. In addition to passing on massive deficits, this budget 
underfunds education programs and cuts investments in our future, like 
scientific and medical research.
  I urge my colleagues to take their jobs seriously. We have to have a 
road map for the future. Please vote ``no'' on this budget resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, these are budgets with pay-as-you-go rules. These are 
budgets that do not have pay-as-you-go rules, from 4 years of budget 
surpluses to record setting budget deficit. What is hard to understand 
here?
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress and the legacy of this administration 
cannot be historically large budget deficits and rising anti-
Americanism throughout the globe. Yet that is exactly what is taking 
place here this evening.
  We have an obligation to do better. As the father of two little boys, 
I did not come to this Congress to leave a legacy of debt for our 
children and grandchildren to inherit. This will not make us more 
prosperous, nor will it make us more secure at the end of the day.
  We can do better, and by applying pay-as-you-go rules just to the 
United States Senate and not to the House of Representatives is the 
height of deceit and double-speak that we have before us this evening.
  I encourage my colleagues to reject this budget resolution. We can 
and must do better.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the Chair how much time 
is left on this side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) has 17 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) 
has 13\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  (Mr. MARKEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget reminds me of Saint 
Augustine's famous prayer, ``Lord, make me chaste but not just yet.''
  The budget resolution covers only 1 year, not the 5 years normally 
covered, in order to hide the true scope of the deficits their tax cuts 
have created.
  Its pay-as-you-go provisions do not apply to all of the Republican 
tax cuts.
  Oh, Lord, our Republican friends pray, make us fiscally chaste, but 
not just yet, and only for a year when it comes to the tax cuts we have 
given to our wealthy friends.
  Since taking office, President Bush's reckless tax cutting policy has 
drilled a massive fiscal hole in our economy. Today, the Republican 
budget resolution drills even deeper.
  Republicans are giving us Energizer Bunny deficits. They keep growing 
and growing and growing.
  But the Republican paradox is that they hate the government, but they 
have to run for office in order to make sure that the government does 
not work, and the perfect form of that is when they control the House, 
the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court because then they can 
take the notion of benign neglect which does not harm, it does not 
hurt, and turn it

[[Page H3363]]

into designed neglect where the tax cuts are so massive that cuts in 
Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid and education and the 
environment and every other program that has been put on the books over 
the last 60 years, as each year goes by, has a meat cleaver that has to 
be applied to it in order to make sure that tax cuts for the wealthiest 
2 percentile is preserved.
  Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget reminds me of Saint Augustine's 
famous prayer, ``Lord make me chaste, but not just yet.''
  The budget resolution covers only one year, not the five years 
normally covered--in order to hide the true scope of the deficits their 
tax cuts have created.
  And its pay-as-you-go provisions don't apply to all of the Republican 
tax cuts!
  Oh Lord, our Republican friends pray, make us fiscally chaste, not 
just yet, and only for a year when it comes to the tax cuts we've given 
to our wealthy friends.
  Since taking office, President Bush's reckless tax cutting policy has 
drilled a massive fiscal hole in our economy. Today, the Republican 
budget resolution drills even deeper.
  Republicans are giving us Energizer Bunny deficits--they keep 
growing, and growing, and growing . . .
  Just 3\1/2\ years ago, CBO projected a $5.6 billion surplus over the 
next 10 years. Today, we're looking at a whopping $4.4 trillion deficit 
through 2014.
  The Republican budget on the Floor today reinforces this astonishing 
reversal of fortune. It is a stunning, self-inflicted fiscal wound that 
will fester for generations yet to come. The Congressional Budget 
Office estimates that the budget deficit in 2004 will top last year's 
all-time high deficit and reach $600 billion when current borrowing 
from the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds are included.
  This resolution before us today will essentially freeze non-defense, 
non-homeland discretionary programs. Its budget proposes $13 billion in 
mandatory cuts over 5 years under the guise of reducing waste, fraud 
and abuse. But in reality these cuts could slash veterans' health care, 
Medicaid, unemployment assistance and other domestic programs that 
Americans depend on.
  The Republican budget scheme calls not for benign neglect of Social 
Security, Medicare, health care, education and other domestic programs, 
but designed neglect, in order to siphon away the money the federal 
government needs to meet its obligations under critical programs that 
benefit seniors, veterans, the environment and our children.
  Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill reported that during cabinet 
meetings early in the Bush Administration, Vice President Cheney 
brushed off concerns about tax cuts causing huge deficits by saying 
``Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.''
  The Republican paradox is that Conservatives hate government, but 
they have to run for office to make sure it doesn't work.
  With this budget resolution, they will have succeeded--but their 
success spells disaster for all of those Americans who depend on the 
Federal government to help them, and for the future generations who 
will be stuck with the tab for the tax cuts the Republicans have given 
to the wealthy.
  Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney is wrong. Deficits do matter. 
Defeat this wrong-headed budget resolution, so that we can stop digging 
the deficit hole deeper.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, what has happened to the heart and soul of the 
Republican Party? I used to have a lot of respect for my friends on the 
other side of the aisle when they called themselves fiscal 
conservatives. The Republicans can never again call themselves fiscal 
conservatives.
  The American people are not foolish. Each person, each household in 
America understands that in a budget you only spend as much as you 
have. If you keep overspending year after year, if you spend more money 
than you take in time and time again, bad things happen; and that is 
what is happening here.
  We are having an orgy of tax cuts, and we have an unbalanced budget, 
and we are passing on a legacy of debt to our children and our 
grandchildren.

                              {time}  1930

  Shame on us.
  We fought long and hard in this Chamber to balance the budget during 
the Clinton Presidency. We succeeded by making hard choices. Yet today 
we are presented with an easy choice, borrow and spend. The borrow-and-
spend Republicans have hit once again. Shame on the majority for this 
sham budget.
  When the House debated the budget resolution earlier this year, I 
rose in opposition to it because it is a big fat IOU to our children 
and grandchildren. It is unfair. Shame on the majority for abandoning 
PAYGO for spending and tax cuts.
  We should vote down this quick and easy fix. Let us make the hard 
choices that we were elected to make. Let us pass a budget that 
balances soon, not one that never balances, and not a phony one that is 
only 1 year because we want to masquerade the sham that we are causing.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
  One of the statistics that I think is beyond dispute here is the 
Federal debt now totals $7 trillion. And if you break that down by 
every person living in the United States, it is $24,000 a person.
  A few brave, moderate Republicans in the House stood for a central 
proposition that the American people expect us to live by, that is, 
Democrats, Republicans and Independents, and it is pay as you go. Do 
not cut taxes, do not spend, do not drive this massive Federal debt up 
further unless you can find a way to offset the tax cut or spending.
  Tonight, the Republican majority in this House entirely repudiates 
that proposition over the objections of independent-minded Republicans 
in the House and Senate. There will be no pay-as-you-go. Instead, we 
will be adopting an historic debt ceiling in excess of $7 trillion. How 
abysmal. What reckless fiscal responsibility.
  It is the Democrats standing on the floor of the House tonight 
fighting for fiscal responsibility. This is what taxpayers and citizens 
throughout the country expect. And I would urge the moderate 
Republicans in the U.S. House to reject this budget resolution. Join 
your comrades in the Senate and let us restore fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair tell me how much time is 
left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 13\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a sad night for this House. The budget of the 
United States of America should be a blueprint for our Nation, but this 
budget only extends 1 year. We used to make 10-year budgets, and then 
our friends on the other side of the aisle got more modest in their 
expectations. It was reduced to 5 years because they were afraid for 
the American people to see what lay in the 5 years beyond. Now, they 
are apparently afraid for the American people to see what lies beyond 1 
year.
  We should be preparing for the future. We should be living within our 
means. And for all the good things that have been said about this 
budget, it hides the largest budget deficit in American history.
  Now, if that were temporary, that would be one thing. But what we are 
looking at are permanent structural deficits that will burden this 
economy and burden our children and grandchildren for generations. They 
are doing irreparable harm to our Nation.
  There were some good reasons for a temporary deficit, but not for a 
permanent structural deficit. My Republican colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are good people, but they have been misled by 
ideology into abandoning principles like pay-as-you-go, which helped 
rescue our Nation before from a sea of debt. They have abandoned the 
principle of fiscal responsibility that used to be the lodestar for the 
Republican Party.
  It is so important that we pull together and live within our means, 
spend responsibly, and tax responsibly so that we can have a stronger 
Nation.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to

[[Page H3364]]

respond to the gentleman that that is why our budget reduces the 
deficit next year, $100 billion alone, and that is without raising 
taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman), a very valued member of the committee.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I find it interesting to come to the floor tonight and hear 
from my friends on the other side of the aisle that we need to have 
less spending and more fiscal discipline.
  Having been on the Committee on the Budget and gone through the 
process of a markup where we heard again and again how we were not 
spending enough on education, we were not spending enough on the 
environment, we were not spending enough on health care, we were not 
spending enough on labor issues, we were not spending enough. And 
amendments were offered and amendments were voted down that would spend 
more and more and more.
  And, yes, the Democrats offered an alternative, and I applaud them 
for that, on the floor of the House, although we did not have one in 
committee. And it offered more spending, and that is fine, that is 
fine. But then to come to the floor and say somehow this budget has too 
much spending in it just does not make too much sense.
  The Democrat alternative also offered higher taxes and increasing 
taxes, and we disagree with that. We think this economy has finally 
turned. We now see not only the best growth we have had in 20 years, 
but jobs coming back. We think it is the wrong time to raise taxes.
  So I just hope for those listening, my colleagues and others out 
there, that they realize the budget that is before us, that the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget has put together, is a fair 
budget that provides for spending restraint. It does provide for 
increases in spending on homeland security and on defense, which are 
necessary right now, but for the rest of the budget it is pretty much 
flat.
  And, unfortunately, given our budget deficit situation, we cannot 
make additional investments right now in some high-priority areas and 
other areas. We have to make, as someone said earlier, some tough 
choices, and we are making them in this budget.
  I want to be clear why we believe that it is important to continue to 
allow the tax relief to work and not to increase taxes. We believe that 
because we have seen the impact of tax relief. We did not do it because 
we just like tax relief for tax relief itself. We did it because we 
thought it would grow the economy. And it has worked.
  This chart shows that the growth of our economy is the greatest 
growth we have had in 20 years in this country. In the third quarter of 
last year, we actually had 8.2 percent growth. We had 4.2 percent 
growth in the last quarter. When you combine the last three quarters 
together, it is the best growth we have had since the 1980s, and we 
want to continue that.
  The forecast for the future, in fact, is for much higher growth than 
we even thought was possible only a year ago. Why? Because the economy 
is really turning.
  Along with that growing economy, we are seeing housing starts and 
permits at record highs. Home ownership in the country is at record 
highs right now. Minority home ownership is at record highs. This is 
what is happening out there in the real world, but it is good news 
about our economy that we want to continue.
  We are also seeing here again that it is not just a growing economy 
and the fastest growth in 20 years, but the jobs are coming back. 
Unemployment in this country right now is 5.6 percent. That is lower 
unemployment, my colleagues, than we had in the 1970s, in the 1980s, or 
in the 1990s. The average unemployment in those three decades was 
higher than 5.6 percent. We are seeing unemployment at low levels, and 
we are seeing jobs coming back. There were 1.1 million jobs created in 
this country in the last 8 months. That is a million, 1.1 million, jobs 
in the last 8 months.
  But let us talk about those jobs. Perhaps the gentleman would like to 
tell me what is wrong with 288,000 new jobs being added last month, 
300,000 jobs in the month of March. We are seeing the jobs coming back 
big time, and this is not the time to change our direction and raise 
taxes on the American people and on small businesses and on our 
families. It is a time to continue to see this economy grow and 
prosper. That is what this budget provides.
  It is a fair budget. It makes tough choices, but it also ensures that 
we continue to have the kind of economic growth that all of us hope to 
see.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the 
gentleman.
  The gentleman said jobs are coming back, and the recent job growth is 
a welcome development, but, Mr. Speaker, we are still 2.2 million jobs 
below the level of jobs existing in the economy in March of 2001 when 
the last recession began. We have never seen such a jobless recovery as 
we have seen now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget does not just deepen the fiscal deficit, it 
deepens the moral deficit of cynicism that Americans feel increasingly 
towards this government, because this budget is built upon a 
misrepresentation. It is built upon the misrepresentation that we can 
have it all and never make a tough choice. It says you can keep raising 
what you spend, you can continue to reduce taxes, you can continue to 
borrow massive sums of money, and nothing bad will ever happen.
  Something very bad is going to happen if this budget should become 
law. We are going to borrow more money, drive up interest rates, dry up 
capital for the private sector, and kill jobs in this country for many, 
many years to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the majority has a point when they put forward a 
1-year budget resolution. Maybe there is intuitive wisdom in that, 
because if they follow this policy next year, they will not be writing 
the budget resolution, a new President and a new majority will.
  We welcome and look forward to that day.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about the 
economy on that side of the aisle. I do not blame them. I would not 
talk about this budget either. I, frankly, would not talk much about 
the economy either. A net loss of jobs to this date. Does anybody want 
to dispute that? Apparently not.
  Let none of us be mistaken about what we are witnessing here on the 
floor today. Mr. Speaker, as important as the budget debate is at a 
time of record deficits, at a time of exploding debt, at a time of war, 
this debate is about far more than the budget. This debate marks the 
death, in time and place, of the so-called Republican revolution.
  Ten years ago, the Republican Party recaptured the majority on a 
pledge of reform and a wave of hot rhetoric. Today, with this, and I 
use this word advisedly, dishonest, phony, political Band-Aid that the 
majority wants to call a budget, they, for all intents and purposes, 
are raising the white flag of surrender and announcing to all of 
America: We Republicans simply cannot govern. We Republicans simply 
cannot fulfill one of our most basic responsibilities, to pass a real, 
honest budget. We Republicans have been so blinded by our tax cut 
ideology, that we do not recognize the irresponsibility and, yes, the 
immorality of policies that force our children and grandchildren to pay 
our bills.
  Mr. Speaker, this 1-year Republican budget is simply not credible. It 
brazenly attempts to conceal the record deficits that Republican 
policies have created and the fact that they have no plan to rein in 
those deficits. In fact, for the 1 year it does cover, it projects a 
deficit of $367 billion.
  It conceals the fact that Republicans are robbing the Social Security 
trust fund to pay for Republican tax cuts skewed toward the highest-
income taxpayers.
  It conceals the fact they would freeze domestic priorities, such as 
health care and the environment, and cut them drastically in the 
future.
  And it conceals the fact that this conference report would increase 
the statutory debt limit by $690 billion.

[[Page H3365]]

  And not one of my colleagues on that side of the aisle has the 
courage to stand up and vote for that increase. Not one.
  I have been here long enough to hear my colleagues railing about 
increasing the debt. Last year, my colleagues increased it even more, 
without a vote. It was increased to almost as much as the entire debt 
from 1789 to 1981 at the time I came to Congress. It was $981 billion 
then, and my Republican colleagues increased it $940-plus billion last 
year and another $670 in this budget.
  So, Republicans, my friends, when you vote on this budget, know that 
you are voting to increase the debt by $670 billion.
  This budget also conceals the fact that this conference report would 
lead us into further debt of $8 trillion.

                              {time}  1945

  Yet under the Hastert rule, there will be no debate and no vote on 
that action.
  Mr. Speaker, with this conference report, the majority demonstrates 
its inability to govern and refuses to address the problems that its 
own policies have created. This is the last gasp of the revolution. I 
do not think that they will accept it on the other side, certainly they 
should not; and I do not think they will. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this conference report.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be 
here this evening to discuss how well we treated the veterans in this 
budget.
  Since Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, we have made 
great strides in improving the benefits for our Nation's veterans. 
During that period, total spending on veterans has increased from $38 
billion to $60 billion. That is a 58 percent increase compared with 
only a 36 percent increase during the previous 10 years when the 
Democrats were in control.
  And since 1995, payments per veteran have actually risen by 79 
percent. Let us take a moment to review some of the most important 
improvements. For example, in veterans medical care, the Republican 
Congress has expanded eligibility for medical care in 1996 and 1999. As 
a result, the number of veterans using the VA medical care has 
increased from 2.5 million in 1995 to almost 4.7 million today.
  Since 1995, the total spending on veterans medical care has increased 
from $16.2 billion to $28.3 billion this year alone. That is a 75 
percent increase. In veterans educational benefits, since 1995 monthly 
education benefit levels under the Montgomery-GI bill increased from 
$405 to $985, a 143 percent increase. This compares with only a 35 
percent increase during the time that the Democrats had control.
  And under the 40 years of Democrat control prior to us taking 
control, there was no progress made whatsoever on concurrent receipt. 
We are very fortunate now that military retirees who are injured in 
combat or while training for combat or who are 50 percent or greater 
service disabled are eligible for the first time to receive retirement 
benefits concurrent with their veterans disability compensation. There 
is no doubt that the Republicans have helped the veterans in this 
budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let me make a couple of points clear because 
they have been brought up repeatedly throughout this debate.
  First of all, how much have we reaped in the way of jobs as a result 
of these enormous tax cuts mainly benefiting wealthy Americans? What 
has been the pay-off in jobs?
  This economy went into a recession in March 2001. If we take the 
level of jobs in the private sector at that point in time and compare 
it to today, we are short. There are 2.2 million fewer jobs today, 
notwithstanding the enormous stimulus of all these tax cuts, 2.2 
million fewer jobs. For the first time since President Hoover, we have 
a recovery where we have not recovered the jobs even though we are 15 
months, 18 months out from the trough of the recession. Actually, it is 
longer than that.
  It has also been said that revenues have been rising, and they have 
taken an up-tick recently; but this chart shows when President Bush 
proposed his tax cuts, and we said, Mr. Bush, you are betting the 
budget on a blue-sky forecast; you are betting it for everything it may 
be able to sustain, this was the course of revenues that he projected, 
OMB projected with the tax cuts. With the $3.5 trillion worth of tax 
cuts that was enacted in 2001, the Bush administration nevertheless 
projected that revenues would rise and stabilize at that level.
  Here is the actual level. The broken blue line is the projected 
level, the red line which descends precipitously is the actual level of 
revenues, and the difference between these revenues here, which is 
about $1.1 trillion and this level here, which is below $750 billion, 
is at least $250 billion. Revenues have not risen; taxes have not 
rebounded. We have not had the supply-side phenomenon now, as we did 
not have in 1981. This is the actual record.
  Let me show Members the situation we find ourselves in which makes it 
absolutely essential for us to use the budget resolution, the one tool 
that we have which deals in the aggregate with everything we have spent 
and everything we take in by way of taxes.
  This is the curve on which we were proceeding in 2001 when Mr. Bush 
came to office. He inherited an advantage that no President in modern 
times has had, a budget in surplus. He was in surplus by $236 billion 
in fiscal year 2000, and this was the course that was projected by his 
economists at the Office of Management and Budget. This is the course 
that we have determined we are on today. If you are just for what Iraq 
is likely to cost and what Afghanistan is likely to cost, if you assume 
that all of the tax cuts are going to be renewed, which is a 
politically likely assumption, this is where we are. We get a little 
up-tick from the economy, but the bottom line shows that having risen a 
bit from a projected deficit of $521 billion this year, we go up a 
little bit over $324 billion, but 10 years from now we are right where 
we started: $502 billion. We tread water. We do nothing. We accumulate 
debt, and that is why we are having in this resolution to raise the 
debt ceiling by $690 billion, because year after year we are stacking 
debt on top of debt. That is the result of this budget, and this 
resolution does nothing on the revenue side or the spending side.
  We have heard a lot of talk about how we have this runaway spending, 
but let me show where the spending is occurring. If we look at all of 
the spending in the Federal budget and you take these spikes in the 
budget where spending in certain accounts is faster than current 
services, guess what those accounts are: defense, homeland security, 
the response to 9/11, accounts for 4 fiscal years accounts for 90 to 95 
percent of all of the increase in spending over and above current 
services.
  There are two points Members can draw from this. First of all, the 
President has requested this. We provided it. We had to spend it.
  Secondly, the likelihood this is going to be reined in significantly, 
defense, it goes up to $422 billion. That is without including the 
supplementals. This is not going to be reined in significantly. So to 
talk about accounts where spending is growing, we cannot expect in the 
near term any significant cuts in that area.
  What we continually hear talk about is the sector of the budget 
called domestic nonhomeland security, domestic discretionary spending. 
That is it right there. That is one-sixth of the budget. It is about 
$384 billion. The budget deficit is bigger than that. Clearly, this has 
the FBI, the National Park Service, the court service, the whole 
operation of the government in it. Clearly, we cannot squeeze enough 
blood out of that turnip to begin to get rid of this enormous deficit.
  Let me show Members one final chart just to show it can be done. This 
budget resolution does not do it, but it can be done. When President 
Clinton came to office in January 1992, we had just recorded our 
biggest deficit in history, $290 billion at the end of fiscal year 
1992. He came into office in 1993. Spending was at 22.5 percent of GDP. 
We did it by lowering spending and raising revenues. It can be done 
again, but this budget resolution does not do it. Let us vote it down 
and send them back to conference and start over again.

[[Page H3366]]

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for the purpose of a colloquy 
between myself and the gentleman from Texas, and ask the gentleman to 
summarize.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, in the Senate Budget Committee, they 
adopted a provision which would have reduced the maximum payments 
farmers can receive under the 2002 farm bill, and I asked the gentleman 
to address that during the conference. Is that provision still in the 
budget?
  Earlier this year, the Senate Budget Committee adopted a provision in 
its budget resolution which assumes enactment of legislation reducing 
the maximum payments farmers can receive from commodity support 
programs. As the Chairman knows, the 2002 Farm Bill addressed this 
issue through a delicate compromise acceptable to rural members across 
different regions of the country. Any erosion of this compromise would 
penalize producers in my West Texas district who would be punished for 
the efficiencies they have achieved. To clarify for my constituents who 
strongly oppose the Senate provision, I would like to ask the 
distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee if the Senate payment 
limit provision was dropped in conference?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, that provision is still in the budget. We 
worked to preserve that. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on 
that. The provision in the Senate-passed budget resolution concerning 
the farm payment limitation is not included in the conference version. 
I thank the gentleman for his leadership and his continued efforts in 
this regard.
  The gentleman is correct and I appreciate his leadership on this 
issue and work to ensure that we keep the promises of the Farm Bill. 
The provision in the Senate passed budget resolution concerning farm 
payment limitations is not included in this conference version. Any 
major changes to farm payment limits or any other agricultural policies 
should be addressed by the Agriculture Committee which has jurisdiction 
over these issues.
  While the House passed budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 393, included 
$371 million over five years in reconciliation instructions for the 
Agriculture Committee, these instructions, which were never intended to 
reduce critical farm commodity support programs, are not included in 
the conference agreement.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his efforts on 
behalf of my constituents in West Texas.
  My constituents will be most pleased and relieved by the decision to 
remove the Senate's farm payment limit proposal in the conference 
version of the budget resolution and the Chairman's continued 
affirmation that neither this budget, nor the House version, will 
reduce any Farm Bill program payments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, each Member 
will be allowed to revise and extend their remarks.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a very valued Member and the vice chairman of 
the committee.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as we have developed this fiscal year 2005 
budget resolution, I have listened carefully to my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle. The one common theme for the many budget 
alternatives offered by the Congressional Black Caucus, the Blue Dogs, 
and the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget on 
behalf of the Democratic Caucus has been higher taxes and more 
spending.
  I have also heard too frequently that my side of the aisle is cutting 
spending for important programs, like education, veterans, and health 
care. The fact is when you look at Federal spending for the last few 
years, you will see few programs that have not received significant 
increases, in most cases very significant increases. Only in Washington 
do we call a spending increase a cut.
  I think our budget can be summed up in one word: responsible.
  We think it is responsible to control spending at a time of mounting 
budget deficits. By freezing nondefense, nonhomeland security spending 
for 1 year, we are taking a painful, but necessary, step towards fiscal 
responsibility. I strongly support many of these programs, but I also 
know being fiscally responsible requires tough choices, like we made in 
the late 1990s, including Members saying no to increases to many 
popular programs.
  We think it is responsible to not raise taxes during a period of 
economic recovery. The tax relief we passed in 2001 and 2003 fueled the 
economy to 8.2 percent growth in the third quarter of 2003, the highest 
growth rate in 20 years; 4.1 percent growth in the fourth quarter of 
last year; and 4.2 percent growth in the first quarter of 2004. 
Additionally, the unemployment rate declined from 6.3 percent in June 
2003 to 5.6 percent in April 2004. While this substantial growth in the 
economy is welcome news, we know there is still work to do, 
particularly with employment. We think it is important to continue the 
policies that have led to the current economic recovery. The fact is 
there are more jobs today than ever before, but there are more people 
looking for work.
  We also think it is responsible to plan for ongoing military 
operations around the world. All of us, on both sides of the aisles, 
want to make sure we provide whatever resources are necessary for the 
men and women of our Armed Forces who are risking their lives as we 
speak. I look at the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) as a good 
example. For this reason, we have provided $50 billion for fiscal year 
2005 for the additional cost associated with our operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  I would just add it is absolutely critical we give this budget the 
force of law. The Committee on the Budget has marked up legislation 
that would reinstate discretionary spending caps and pay-as-you-go on 
mandatory spending. I appreciate the leadership's willingness to 
consider this legislation soon after we return in June.
  Mr. Speaker, from 1997 until 2001, the books of the Federal budget 
showed that we were running a surplus. For the 40 years prior to that, 
the country was running deficits. I was grateful that we played a 
significant role in crafting the budget in the 1990s that not only got 
us to balance, but got us there ahead of time. We did it by cutting 
taxes, controlling the growth of spending, and growing the economy.

                              {time}  2000

  This budget begins to use that model to address the deficit and get 
our country's financial house in order.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It is often asked at a time, is America better off than it was 4 
years ago? Is it better off at all?
  Well, it is.
  Homeland security. Since 2000, we have greatly strengthened our 
homeland security, in part because of the budgets that we have passed 
to make sure that our homeland is protected through strength. We have 
created the Department of Homeland Security and more than doubled the 
funding for homeland security since September 11. With the improved 
resources, we have increased presence in key ports, the Bio Watch 
program now on many large U.S. cities, and over 500,000 first 
responders have been trained. America's homeland security is better 
off.
  Defense. Over the past 3 years, we have made great strides in 
correcting the defense deficit done in the early 1990s, including 
increasing the Department of Defense's annual budget by over $110 
billion to prosecute the global war on terrorism, greatly improving the 
military quality of life. Our defense is better off than it was 4 years 
ago, and it is better off under this budget.
  Our economy. The economy is growing now in 2004, the best in 20 
years, not on the verge of a recession the way it was when President 
Clinton left office. Real gross domestic product growth is at its 
highest pace in 20 years. Payroll employment is growing strongly now. 
We have had 1.1 million jobs added to this economy just since last 
August. Manufacturing jobs are increasing, the unemployment rate is 
falling, and housing markets are the strongest in 20 years. The economy 
is much better off than it was 4 years ago and it will be better if we 
continue the policies of this budget.
  Our budget is the blueprint that allows these policies to continue, 
and we will all be better off if we adopt that budget here today. We 
need to adopt it to provide the strength of this country, the growth 
for our economy, and the

[[Page H3367]]

opportunity for our future. And we can do it without a tax increase and 
reduce the deficit by over $100 billion next year alone. That is what 
this budget accomplishes. The other side offers nothing but fear and 
trying to talk down the economy and trying to scare people about our 
future. That is not an agenda. Fear and anger is not an agenda.
  The agenda we need to adopt today is a positive one of strength, 
growth, and opportunity for our future; and we can do it if we adopt 
this conference report on the budget. I ask for the adoption of the 
conference report.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this Budget 
Conference Report and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to support.
  I want to thank Budget Chairman Jim Nussle for his yeoman's work 
under difficult circumstances.
  My friends, this is a war-time budget.
  We are at war, a war started on September 11, 2001.
  This is world war, stretching from Afghanistan to Iraq, to almost 
every other continent on the globe.
  This war has two battlefields.
  One is the foreign theater, where our troops are fighting a more 
conventional war, fought by our brave soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
The Department of Defense is coordinating this fight.
  The other battlefield is here at home, where we are fighting against 
unknown terrorists. Our Department of Homeland Security is coordinating 
that fight.
  This budget includes responsible increases for both Departments. It 
also includes 50 billion dollars for possible additional expenditures 
on the war. Everything else is kept at a freeze level.
  To those who don't like this budget, I say this is the most fiscally 
responsible budget conference report we have considered on the House 
floor since I have been in the Congress.
  Now some of our friends on the other side of the aisle don't like the 
modest number we include for tax relief in this budget. But they won't 
be satisfied until we raise taxes on every man, woman and child in 
America.
  We keep the tax cuts in place because the tax cuts keep the economy 
growing. In fact, since we last met on the floor to talk about the 
budget, the economy has grown so quickly, that the estimates of the 10-
year budget deficit have dropped by a hundred billion dollars. That is 
why we want to keep the tax cuts in place. To keep more people working, 
to keep the economy growing, to keep America strong, and to win this 
war. That is why we need to pass this budget.
  Mr. Speaker, let's pass this budget and start the process of getting 
our work done for the rest of the year.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this 
distinguished body wanting more for the American public we were sworn 
to represent. It was my sincere hope that after 7 weeks in a Conference 
with Members of the Senate, that Republicans would find a way to make 
this budget better than it was; instead they somehow found a way to 
make it worse. Not only does this conference report maintain the prior 
insufficient funding for vital issues like education, veterans funding, 
and Homeland Security; but this conference report may very well be the 
most irresponsible piece of budget legislation to ever come before this 
body.
  The fact that this conference report only truly provides budget 
figures for 1 year goes beyond being irresponsible, but is in fact 
cowardly. It is cowardly because the Republicans are putting out a 1-
year budget to hide from the long term effects of their own reckless 
fiscal policies. The truth about this conference report is the same 
truth that was evident from President Bush's budget and then the House 
version of the budget; the truth is that Republicans will go to any 
length to permanently extend tax cuts that benefit the rich.
  No longer can Republicans in either body of Congress claim that 
Democrats are the ones who hold irresponsible fiscal policies. It has 
been in fact the Democrats who time after time have argued for a lower 
deficit and more reasonable planning. It has been Democrats who have 
been working tirelessly to get our budget back into balance. Instead of 
embracing these goals, goals that the American people clearly care 
about, the Republicans have decided instead to pursue an extreme agenda 
that only truly benefits upper-class Americans.
  The last time Congress provided a one-year budget was 1979. Any 
reasonable person can tell you why that is true, because you need to 
know that the decisions we make today will still make sense in the 
future. The sad truth is that this conference report is bad now and 
getting exponentially worse in the future; and the Republicans know 
it's true.
  A vote for this conference report is also a vote to increase the debt 
limit by $690 billion, to a new limit of $8.1 trillion. When in the 
history of this Nation or any other nation in fact, has it been in the 
best interest to incur more debt? Again, the truth is clear, 
Republicans have used this budget for one reason and one reason alone, 
to make permanent their tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, their 
oneyear budget provides $122 billion less in defense funding than the 
President has requested for 2006 through 2009. Instead of making a 
reasonable compromise, Republicans in both chambers of Congress have 
found a way to increase the debt while still under-funding vital 
national priorities.
  This conference report may also be classified as cowardly because not 
only does it shy away from budget enforcement rules, but it runs and 
hides. Once again, the truth is open and known; Republicans refuse to 
have any reasonable constraint on their reckless tax policies.
  The most disturbing aspect of this conference report is the way it 
avoids practical Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) budget enforcement rules. For 
years, the calls for fiscal responsibility were deafening from the 
Republicans in this body and yet when they have the opportunity to 
truly be responsible they decide to take the course of recklessness. 
When Democrats wanted to increase funding for necessary programs in 
education, veterans funding, and Homeland Security we were told that 
increasing spending would harm the economy. Yet, when Republicans 
themselves present wholesale changes in tax policy that have only been 
proven to benefit the wealthy, they are unprepared and unwilling to 
offer any offsets. This conference report will make these drastic tax 
cuts permanent with having any offsets to help bring our budget in to 
balance. Revenues coming in to the Federal Government are at an all-
time low and yet this nation's needs are increasing.
  This conference report represents the kind of irresponsible budget 
policies that have failed this Nation before. Republicans have not 
lived up to the promises they have made in the past. Unfortunately our 
children will be the ones forced to live with the consequences if we 
allow this conference report to pass today.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as we know, the policies 
we've put in place to support economic growth are working.
  But in addition to getting and keeping the economy going, we must 
also control spending. It matters. If you're going to say that deficits 
matter, you'd better believe that spending matters. All spending must 
be paid for, either through taxes or borrowing--and both are burdens on 
the economy. And for that simple reason alone, controlling spending is 
itself a policy for sustaining stronger economic growth.
  This budget calls for several measures to help us get our hands 
around what has become an unsustainable rate of spending growth. This 
includes holding the line on all nondefense, nonhomeland security 
spending.
  As Chairman Nussle mentioned earlier, this won't be easy. Many of us 
here in Congress have gotten pretty comfortable signing off on huge 
spending increases, and free-flowing new spending.
  But success at keeping taxes and spending down will mean a stronger 
economy and better standards of living for our Nation. If we don't 
control spending the result will be higher borrowing or higher taxes.
  Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has agreed that we need to control 
spending, not raise taxes, if we want to make sure that we don't harm 
our economy and our standards of living.
  Here is his quote:

       Tax rate increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our 
     looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to 
     economic growth and the revenue base. The exact magnitude of 
     such risks are very difficult to estimate, but they are of 
     enough concern, in my judgment, to warrant aiming to close 
     the fiscal gap primarily, if not wholly, from outlay 
     restraint.

  The simple translation of what he said is that we need to restrain 
spending because the economy would be hurt by higher taxes. Our budget 
resolution does just that: it restrains spending and keeps taxes from 
increasing. That's good for our economy, and it's good for our Nation.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the Budget Resolution Conference Report 
marks the end of a long, arduous process, during which our staff do 
most of the work and get little of the credit they are due. I would 
like to thank my excellent staff for their expertise and energy and 
tireless work. They are as follows: Tom Kahn, Sarah Abernathy, Arthur 
Burris, Linda Bywaters, Dan Ezrow, Jennifer Friedman, Jason Lumia, 
Sheila McDowell, Diana Meredith, Joe Minarik, Kimberly Overbeek, Scott 
Russell, Andy Smullian, Lisa Venus, Andrea Weathers, and Jesse 
Contario.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Republican budget that 
we are being asked to vote on today. For several years now, responsible 
Members of this body have been speaking out against a budgeting process 
that has been getting more absurd and undemocratic by the year.

[[Page H3368]]

  But I believe this year that the Republican leadership has outdone 
itself. Again this year, Republicans have given us a budget that fails 
to pay for health care, fails to pay for schools, fails to pay for 
veterans, and fails to pay for roads. Again this year, they have given 
us a budget that increases the debt that our children will have to pay, 
tying a thousand-pound weight around the neck of our economy.
  But this year, the Republican leadership has added a new twist. This 
budget is structured so that it cannot even be passed by the other body 
and become law.
  For those Americans outside of Washington who are watching this 
tonight, you deserve to know something about the cynical exercise we 
are engaged in here. The vote we will cast tonight will be purely 
symbolic. It will only be symbolic because some Republicans on the 
other side of the Capitol Building are finally saying enough is 
enough--that we cannot continue to rack up debt and force it onto our 
children. I regret that the Republican leadership in this House has not 
yet reached the same conclusion and decided to get our fiscal house in 
order.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. Con. Res. 95. As 
too many of us in this body know, this budget is a sham. It fails to 
account for the real costs of waging the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
At least on the House side, it allows tax cuts for the wealthiest 
Americans to go forward unchecked, while spending for important 
domestic programs is laid to waste.
  Among those high priorities that will be severely underfunded is 
veterans' health care. Committee on Veterans Affairs Chairman 
Christopher H. Smith and I submitted Views and Estimates to the Budget 
Committee requesting that it add $2.5 billion to VA's budget for fiscal 
year 2004. This was not a ``pie in the sky'' request, but rather, 
focused on maintaining current services, restoring funds from the 
administration's failed proposals to increase copayments and introduce 
new enrollment fees, and slightly enhancing some services that will 
have to respond to the needs of demobilizing troops. The resolution we 
are voting on today will make less than half of these funds available 
to VA's discretionary programs.
  Mr. Speaker, sadly, I realize VA programs are among those considered 
``protected'' in this budget fiasco. Many social programs will fare 
worse. Unfortunately, that's not good enough for our veterans, 
especially during a time of war when we should be most sensitive toward 
keeping our promises to the men and women who have borne the battle.
  Many of the major veterans' organizations have expressed great 
concern about the budget. As underfunded as the budget was by the 
Committee's reckoning, it is even more so according to the Independent 
Budget. The four major veterans service organizations who prepare this 
document estimate that VA requires almost $4 billion to maintain its 
services in fiscal year 2005. And that's not the worst of it--budget 
process bills that may be put forth in the near future may use the 
projections of future years spending to bind us to even more inadequate 
budgets. So as bad as fiscal year 2005 looks, the outlook for future 
years could be even bleaker.
   Mr. Speaker, we must do better by the veterans who have served us. 
We must do better by the American people. Vote ``no'' on accepting this 
Conference Report.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise in opposition to the 
irresponsible budget conference report before us today.
  This conference report, for the first time in over twenty years, only 
provides us with a one-year budget plan. In the first version of the 
bill, my colleagues attempted to use a five-year budget instead of a 
ten-year budget to hide the massive fiscal irresponsibility of their 
plan. Now, because even a five-year plan was too much, they have 
reduced it even further to merely one year. There is no plan to reduce 
the deficit or to provide funding for this Nation's most important 
domestic programs, for our veterans, our seniors and our children. This 
rascality on the part of my Republican colleagues is unacceptable. The 
American people deserve to know the outrageous bills the Bush 
Administration is racking up in their name and with our children's 
credit.
  Further, this bill included $55.2 billion in additional tax giveaways 
which will only add to the already ballooning deficit. My Republican 
colleagues will not even apply the ``pay-as-you-go'' (PAYGO) method to 
these tax giveaways because they know we cannot afford them. The PAYGO 
enforcement rule is a mere common sense attempt to steer clear of 
unnecessary excessive spending. This is especially necessary to afford 
the tremendous costs of war which we face today. In this budget, the 
PAYGO rule is only applied to entitlement spending for one year, and in 
reality would only apply to legislation in the Senate.
  If this budget passes, we will also be agreeing to increase the debt 
limit by $690 billion, to $8.1 trillion. Including this measure in the 
budget and not as stand-alone legislation, is merely an attempt to 
conceal the catastrophic costs incurred by the fiscal policy of this 
Administration and Congress.
  On the Medicare side, Republicans offer no proposals to improve the 
insufficient Medicare drug benefit enacted last year. Also absent from 
this budget are other proposals that could improve the Medicare program 
such as funding for increased nursing home staffing and quality 
improvement or fixing the flawed payment system for doctors. Nor are 
there any proposals to protect the Medicare program from being 
overcharged and defrauded by private insurance companies and Health 
Maintenance Organizations. And of course, there is the similarly 
outrageous effort of this White House to hide from both Democrats and 
Republicans the true cost of their Medicare privatization bill, which 
truly makes me wonder whether any of their budget numbers can even be 
trusted.

  This budget continues the Republican war on the environment. The 
President and Republicans will try to sound like they are 
environmentalists, but the truth is in this budget which contains 
drastic cuts to major environmental protection programs. This budget 
cuts discretionary environmental spending by $900 billion below 2004 
levels. My Republican colleagues would rather give tax breaks to their 
fat cat friends than invest in clean water and cleaning up toxic waste 
sites.
  In addition, this budget does nothing to protect the Social Security 
trust fund, five years from when the first of the baby boomer 
generation reach retirement age. These Republicans' fiscal 
mismanagement will squander the entire $1 trillion Social Security 
surplus, adding to the ballooning deficit and throwing the long term 
economic security of millions of Americans into doubt.
  For education, No Child Left Behind is already dramatically under 
funded and this budget will continue this disgrace. We cannot leave the 
states to pick up the tab for this federally mandated program. Special 
education, after school programs, teacher training, Pell grants, 
Perkins loans, and vocational education are all either frozen or cut 
under this draconian budget. I wonder if my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are trying to ensure that public schools fail so they 
can privatize the entire system?
  We need to get back to fiscal responsibility and get the nation's 
economy back on track before this economic crisis gets even further out 
of control. We need to take care of our veterans, our children and our 
environment. We need to ensure that our citizens have healthcare and 
education and opportunities. This conference report is nothing but a 
sham and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the 
conference report on S. Con. Res. 95, the Republican budget.
  Rhode Islanders are facing challenges on many fronts, and the budget 
resolution gave us an opportunity to address many of them, including 
education, health care, and housing shortfalls. Instead, Republicans 
chose to continue borrowing money from future generations to pay for 
their failed fiscal policies that have left the economy more than two 
million jobs lighter since the beginning of the current Administration. 
Under the Republican budget, the obstacles we face today will only grow 
in the coming years.
  Although I did not believe it possible, the conference report before 
us today is actually less fiscally responsible than the budget which 
barely passed this House in March by a razor thin margin of 215-212. As 
a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and the Armed 
Services Committee, I understand the unprecedented challenges our 
nation is facing at home and abroad. All of us want to ensure that our 
troops have all the resources needed to protect us and themselves at 
home and abroad. Both the physical and economic security of our 
families are at stake. Working within this framework, the Republican 
leadership could have negotiated a bipartisan compromise that both 
parties could support, but instead continued down an ideological path 
without reaching out to Democrats.
  This budget has too many shortfalls to list, so I will just cite a 
few of the most egregious problems. For the first time in more than two 
decades, the budget conference report fails to specify multi-year 
policy numbers. By providing the costs for only a single year of 
programs and policies, the budget provides no plan to reduce the 
deficit and no commitment that critical resources for defense, homeland 
security, education, health care, veterans, and other priorities will 
be available in future years. The absence of meaningful numbers beyond 
the first year masks the true consequences of Republican priorities.
  In addition, this budget automatically raises the debt limit by 
nearly $700 billion, to $8.1 trillion. There will be no further debate 
or votes on this crucial issue that affects the pocketbooks of every 
American. At a time when the CBO anticipates a budget deficit of more 
than $400 billion, Congress must make the difficult decisions to return 
our budget to balance, but the Republicans failed to do so.
  Finally, the budget rejects legitimate Pay-As-You-Go enforcement 
rules to keep the

[[Page H3369]]

budget deficit in check. The PAYGO rules would ensure that the 
government does not increase spending or cut taxes unless these changes 
would not add to the deficit. PAYGO rules fueled the unprecedented 
economic and job growth during the 1990s, but the budget before us 
chooses irresponsible deficits over fiscal restraint.
  Deficit spending has stymied job growth and is plaguing our economy. 
We are facing a record deficit with no plan to return the budget to 
balance. No Rhode Islander would write a check without sufficient funds 
to cash that check. Neither should the government.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Republican budget and 
working towards a bipartisan, fiscally responsible plan.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 213, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 198]

                               YEAS--216

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     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
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     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
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     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)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     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
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     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
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     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
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     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--5

     Ballance
     Delahunt
     Hayworth
     Leach
     Tauzin


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette) (during the vote). Members 
are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2028

  Mr. SERRANO and Mr. GERLACH changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. HOBSON and Mr. BACHUS changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________