[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4758-4766]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 83, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
                    ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2002

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up H. Res. 100 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 100

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2002, revising the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 2001, and setting 
     forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2011. The first reading of the concurrent 
     resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the concurrent resolution are 
     waived. The period of debate on the subject of the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002 that occurred 
     on March 27, 2001, pursuant to the order of the House of 
     March 22, 2001, shall be considered to have been debate on 
     House Concurrent Resolution 83, and the time for debate 
     prescribed in section 305 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 shall be considered to have expired. A further period of 
     general debate shall be confined to the concurrent resolution 
     and shall not exceed 40 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Budget. After such further general debate, 
     the concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. The amendment specified in part A 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in 
     the Committee of the Whole. The current resolution, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. No further amendment 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All 
     points of order against the amendments printed in part B of 
     the report are waived except that the adoption of an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the 
     conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
     amendment. After the conclusion of consideration of the 
     concurrent resolution for amendment and a final period of 
     general debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall 
     rise and report the concurrent resolution, as amended, to the 
     House with such further amendment as may have been adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final 
     adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered 
     by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to 
     section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
     achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     of its adoption.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), my friend; pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only on this matter.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 100 is a structured rule, as we have just heard 
the Clerk read. It is fairly typical for bringing forward the annual 
congressional budget resolution, for today is budget day in the House.
  For a number of years, we have gotten into a very good habit of 
managing debate on the budget by asking that all amendments be drafted 
in the form of substitutes so that Members could consider the whole 
picture as we debate and weigh our spending priorities. This rule 
continues that tradition and wisely so in my view.
  We have gone to great lengths with this rule to juggle the competing 
needs of having a full debate on a range of issues and perspectives 
without allowing the process to become so unwieldy that it bogs down in 
minutia.
  In that regard, I think the rule is fair in making four, I repeat 
four substitute amendments, which means we are going to have good 
debate today. Those amendments reflect an array of points of view. I 
should note that three of those have Democratic sponsors.
  Specifically, the rule provides for 40 minutes of additional general 
debate

[[Page 4759]]

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Budget. The rule makes in order the 
concurrent resolution modified by the amendment printed in part A of 
the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution.
  The rule further makes in order only those amendments printed in part 
B of the Committee on Rules report. Those four amendments may be 
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, and shall 
not be subject to amendment.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendments except 
that, and this is important, if an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is adopted, it is not in order to consider further 
substitutes.
  The rule provides for a final period of general debate not to exceed 
10 minutes, as the Clerk told us, equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget to occur 
upon conclusion of the consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment.
  The rule permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to offer 
amendments in the House necessary to achieve mathematical consistency.
  Finally, the rule provides that the concurrent resolution shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget provides Congress with a unique opportunity. 
Here we are standing on top of a mountain of budget surplus thanks to 
the fiscal restraint of the majority party in the past several years. 
We gaze over endless possibilities rather than being stuck in the 
depths of a deficit canyon which we were in the early part of the 
1990s.
  Now, instead of jumping off of a mountaintop into some kind of 
spending free fall, it is time we firmly plant our feet and decide what 
we need to get accomplished for the people of the United States of 
America with our tax dollars.
  That is what this budget is about. It is standing firm to ensure that 
our hard-fought surplus is preserved while providing Americans with 
necessary and appropriate government programs and security they deserve 
and count on from the Federal Government.
  The surplus, combined with strong leadership from the new 
administration in the White House, will result from real relief for all 
taxpayers.
  I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and his committee 
for devising a budget that will reflect our commitment to fiscal 
discipline while also ensuring programs like Social Security and 
Medicare will be available for future generations, properly funded.
  As we set forth to debate this budget, it is easy to get bogged down 
by the large abstract numbers; and I imagine we are going to hear lots 
of them today. There will be more zeros flying around this Chamber 
today than there were in the Second World War.
  It is important to remember these numbers represent an opportunity to 
return money to hard-working individuals or, better yet, let them keep 
it and not have to send it on to Washington on April 15 or in quarterly 
payments.
  I know my constituents in southwest Florida want real relief. They 
ask for it every time I see them. It is up to this body to reward their 
hard work, the work they do every day, to admit also that the 
government is taking more in taxes than it actually needs now. Over the 
next 10 years, this budget will provide the average American family 
with up to $1,600 in tax cuts. That is real relief.
  The budget resolution goes further than immediate tax relief. It 
secures the future for all Americans. This security comes from the 
pairing of tax cuts with more funds for programs that every American 
cares about.
  I certainly would not stand here and say that we have achieved 
getting rid of all government waste. I do not know anybody bold enough 
to make that statement, nor would it be an accurate statement.
  Funds will be allocated, however, for important things, to improve 
education, to decrease the national debt, to modernize Social Security 
and Medicare. The increased money for these areas will enable all 
Americans to plan for the future with the assurance that past mistakes 
are, in fact, being corrected.
  This budget illustrates the dedication of both the White House and 
the Republican leadership in Congress to fiscal discipline and to 
identifying, exposing, and excising unnecessary Federal spending. 
Americans do work hard to make and to save money, and they have a right 
to demand fiscal responsibility from the Federal Government.
  But citizens of this country can rest assured that fiscal discipline 
will be practiced by following the blueprint this budget resolution 
outlines, as we will hear in debate today.
  Not only will taxes be cut, but we will still stand committed to 
protecting from frivolous or wasteful spending our surplus which we are 
so proud of at this point. This is a fair rule. It is a standard rule. 
I think it is a good budget resolution that it underlies. I urge 
Members to support both.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; 
and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), my good friend, for 
yielding me the 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues want to pretend they can give 
tax cuts to the very rich without hurting Social Security or Medicare, 
without hurting education or the environment. Mr. Speaker, if it sounds 
too good to be true, it probably is; and this budget is too good to be 
true.
  They refused to admit that they cannot do it all. They do not want to 
admit that their $2 trillion tax cut comes from somewhere, and that 
somewhere is going to be heating programs for the working poor, 
prescription drugs, the national defense, family farms, and better 
schools for our children. Because, Mr. Speaker, there is no way one can 
afford these massive tax cuts and invest in education, provide 
prescription drug benefits, help people warm their homes in the winter; 
that is, not if one stands firm against raiding Social Security and 
Medicare.
  The numbers just will not add up. But I think my Republican 
colleagues know that. They do not want to confess how much they will 
shortchange other important priorities to pay for these tax cuts. So 
instead of a real budget, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues propose 
a ``3-card monte'' budget.
  It puts off confronting harsh realities. It postpones the hard 
choices. It says our numbers might not add up; and when they do not, 
the Republican chairman of the Committee on the Budget will adjust 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Budget did not report a budget 
resolution. It reported a delegation of authority to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle). There are tax cut numbers and total revenue numbers 
in this budget. But section 10 says ignore them.
  Section 10 says the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) will adjust the 
revenue figures to take account of any additional surpluses projected 
by CBO. He can increase the size of the permitted tax cuts. He can 
reduce the appropriate level of public debt, or he can do both.
  Last year's budget also allowed the Committee on the Budget chairman 
to determine how much, if any, additional surplus to devote to tax 
cuts. Three weeks ago, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) used this 
authority to adjust last year's tax numbers to make room for this 
year's first tax bill.

                              {time}  0915

  It does not matter that there is a new President, a new Congress, a 
new set of priorities. Republicans say they do not need to see whether 
these new priorities fit with tax cuts of this size. The only 
priorities that count are those of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle), and he can decide to devote all of the surplus that is needed 
to fit this year's bills.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again giving him the same unilateral 
authority for next year, but this time the Republicans do not stop at 
tax cuts. There

[[Page 4760]]

are aggregate spending numbers in this budget. There is an energy 
number and an education number, and there is a defense number and an 
agriculture number. Section 6 says ignore all these numbers. Come July 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) will look around and decide for 
the House what the spending numbers really are.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say, the chairmanship of the Committee on the 
Budget is looking better every day. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) can rewrite the numbers without a hearing and without a vote of 
any committee. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman can do it without any House 
action at all. Make no mistake about it, today we vote to grant the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) extraordinary discretion to change the 
whole spending side of the budget.
  And as if this broad spending authority is not enough, there are 
plenty of reserve funds to go around, too. There is a separate reserve 
fund for fiscal year 2001 defense, agriculture and other critical 
needs, a special fund for education, a fund for emergencies, one for 
Medicare, another for this, for that, and for the other thing, too.
  Years ago Mr. Domenici, the chairman on the Senate side, faced a 
number of questions about a reserve fund in his budget. Frustrated, he 
tried to explain the notion once and for all with this phrase, ``The 
money is in the resolution and the money is not in the resolution, and 
if you cannot see that, you must be blind.''
  Where I grew up, if you could not see through a ruse like that, you 
lost your wallet, your shirt, your reputation, not your eyesight. A 
reserve fund means that the numbers in the budget are not worth the 
paper they are printed on; Republicans can adjust them as they go 
along.
  Mr. Speaker, this turns the budget process on its head. We will no 
longer use the budget to decide if we can afford one whole set of 
proposals viewed together. We will no longer enforce the totals we 
decide on in the budget. Instead, the Committee on the Budget chairman 
will determine, as each proposal comes up, if he likes it enough to 
adjust the budget levels to accommodate it. What a mockery.
  My Republican colleagues on the Committee on Rules and the Committee 
on the Budget have said we need a biennial budget, but they cannot even 
write a budget that will last through July. If we cannot write a budget 
that will last for 2 months, how can we expect to do one for 2 years?
  Mr. Speaker, we do not need these contingency funds and reserve funds 
and other extraordinary procedures to rewrite the budget as we go 
along. Republicans should step up to the plate. They should admit that 
a $2 trillion tax cut to benefit the rich is more important than 
anything else. They should admit that they are willing to endanger 
Medicare, cut heating programs, slash education, and decimate a new 
prescription drug benefit. But this budget lets them pretend for a 
while that all is well.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. I urge my colleagues 
to send this budget back and demand a real budget, an honest budget 
instead.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair reminds Members that 
they are not to make references to statements made by Members of the 
other body.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think I detected support for the rule in the opening 
statement of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), among several 
opportunities we will have to discuss several budgets today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Following along on his comments, I think we will have to put the 
comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) in the undecided 
column based on the statements he has just provided us.
  I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle), who has done a superb job here with this, and I also want to 
commend the newest member to the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings), who has also worked on this issue and done a 
phenomenal job.
  Over the past 6 years, Republican Congresses have been very proud to 
have made history with budgets that have stopped reckless Washington 
spending, paid down the national debt, protected Social Security, and, 
of course, focused resources on our Nation's priorities. Once again, 
once again, Mr. Speaker, we are about to make history.
  I have had the privilege of serving this body for over two decades 
now. Every single year that a budget has come forward during that time, 
and I suspect going back all of the way to 1974 when the Budget 
Empowerment Act was passed, there has been a three-letter acronym put 
on that budget: D-O-A. ``Dead on arrival'' has been placed on every 
budget, but late this afternoon we are going to pass the President's 
budget, and that is a great testimony to this administration and the 
fact that President Bush has provided such great leadership.
  We know that Republicans have changed the culture of Washington so 
much that President Clinton was forced over the past several years, as 
we were pursuing all of these great accomplishments that we had, to 
stand right here in this Chamber behind where I am and say, the era of 
big government is over. But today President Bush is at the helm, and he 
is making a great deal of history.
  The Republican budget pays down $2.3 trillion in national debt. The 
Republican budget provides tax relief for every American who pays 
taxes. The Republican budget makes education of our children a top 
priority. The Republican budget protects Social Security from the 
spending raids that went on for the three decades before we came to 
majority here in the Congress, and the Republican budget, of course, 
does what is our number one priority at the Federal level, and that is 
rebuild our Nation's military capability.
  So to sum this up, Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget is a fair and 
balanced American budget that fully funds our shared priorities while 
reforming taxes and paying down the national debt. This is a very fair 
rule; and as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) said, he suspects 
that underneath the statement of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
there was support of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Florida, we 
make in order three Democratic substitutes, one Republican substitute. 
We should have a rigorous and interesting debate today. But at the end 
of the day, I am very, very proud that we will pass the President's 
budget, which is the right thing to do.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have just been told that we are about to 
pass the President's budget today. That is simply not true. The 
President is not even planning to send his budget down to the Congress 
until a week from Monday, and yet the Congress is so hell-bent to pass 
a tax bill before the public understands the consequences of that tax 
bill that we are passing it before we even have the full budget sent 
down by the President. That to me is a disgraceful institutional 
advocation of responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, there are three reasons why we should vote against this 
``budget'' and this resolution. First of all, this so-called budget 
resolution and the tax cuts contained in it are based upon flimsy, 
foggy guesses about what we are going to have in the Treasury 10 years 
from now. We do not have the faintest idea what we are going to have by 
way of surpluses 10 years from now. The numbers on which this budget is 
based have changed by 75 percent in 1 year. To commit to 10-year tax 
cut numbers on the basis of a guess about how much money is going to be 
in the

[[Page 4761]]

Treasury 10 years from now is patently ridiculous. Daffy Duck might 
pass that kind of budget; we should not.
  Second, I would like to point out, as has been pointed out by the 
gentleman from Texas, that the tax cuts contemplated in this budget are 
so large that they leave no room on the table to deal with fixing 
Social Security long term, to deal with fixing Medicare long term, both 
of which are going to be in deficit in the long term. They leave no 
money left on the table to have a real attack on educational inadequacy 
or do a real alternative on prescription drugs, or to meet many of the 
other national priorities that our people have.
  Mr. Speaker, worse, it risks repeating what happened in 1981, the 
last time this Congress rammed through a tax package before they had a 
budget. In 1981, we were told by President Reagan: ``If you just pass 
my tax bill, we will have a balanced budget in 4 years.'' The green 
bars on this chart demonstrate what we were told we would have. 
Deficits would go down to zero in 4 years. Instead, the red bars 
demonstrate that we wound up with deficits tripling and quadrupling 
over that time, and interest rates went up by two full percent, and 4 
million people lost their jobs. This resolution risks making the same 
mistake that we made in 1981, and I do not think that we ought to do it 
again.
  This resolution makes a number of changes in the budget process that 
further detaches this Congress from economic reality, and I do not 
think that we ought to do that. It is a shell game, as the gentleman 
from Texas has indicated.
  Mr. Speaker, thirdly and most importantly, this budget speaks to our 
values as much as it does to our accounting, and it tells a sad story. 
The fact is that this budget places supersize tax cuts for people over 
$200,000 ahead of our obligations, our prior obligations, to fix 
Medicare, fix Social Security or do anything significant on education.
  My colleagues know there is a direct link between how well you do in 
the classroom and how well you do in the world economy afterwards, and 
yet this President, while talking as though education is his priority, 
instead cuts in half the increases we have had in the last 5 years to 
strengthen education. He puts the needs of taxpayers who make more than 
$200,000 a year ahead of the needs of all of the school children of 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget resolution, because it refuses to cap tax 
cuts at $6,700, because it insists giving people who make over $200,000 
a year much larger tax cuts than $6,700 a year, because it insists on 
doing that for the 2.3 million taxpayers who make more than $200,000 a 
year, it gets in the way of our being able to revolutionize education 
for the 47 million kids who need it.
  Mr. Speaker, for the $280 billion that we could save by simply 
capping tax cuts at $6,700 for people who make over $200,000, we could 
do three things: We could, first of all, reduce the class size for 
every class in America down to 18. That is the size at which the 
research shows kids learn the best. Secondly, we could pay teachers 
enough so we could close the gap between what teachers get and other 
professionals. Thirdly, we could eliminate the construction backlog for 
every dilapidated school in America.
  We ought to put those priorities ahead of the tax cut, above $6,700 
for the wealthiest 1 percent of people in the country. The fact that we 
do not says something very sad about the values of this Chamber.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, might I make an inquiry about the time 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 
20\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 19.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation. As a member of both the Committee on Rules and the 
Committee on the Budget, I would like to congratulate the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman on the Committee on Rules, 
on a very fair rule allowing for open debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I also thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for a budget resolution that 
recognizes a need to rein in Federal spending while ensuring that our 
Nation's needs are met.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have crafted a resolution that will 
allow the Committee on Appropriations to responsibly allocate money to 
the subcommittees and to ensure that we maintain fiscal discipline 
throughout this whole process.
  Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight one very important 
aspect of this resolution that affects many of us throughout the 
country. The Department of Energy's Environmental Management Program is 
at a critical juncture this year. I am pleased that the Committee on 
the Budget has highlighted the very real need for increased funding by 
including language that I authored, recognizing a need for 
approximately $6.65 billion for this program for fiscal year 2002.

                              {time}  0930

  This language is a strong signal to both the Committee on 
Appropriations and the administration of the importance of the nuclear 
cleanup funding for fiscal year 2002. I encourage OMB to take a note of 
Congress' support for this program as evidenced by the pending passage 
of the budget resolution today and to provide funding as suggested by 
the report language.
  I am very concerned about recent reports that rather than increase 
the funding for this program the administration at least in appearance 
had proposed to cut this cleanup effort, but what we have seen in the 
past is a dramatic increase in cleanup success throughout the Nation as 
we focus more on cleanup and less on bureaucracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that because at the sites throughout 
the country we indeed have focused more on cleanup rather than just 
adding more people to the whole process.
  I am confident this trend can and must continue through continued 
funding for the PM program. A failure to fully fund this program will 
result in increased costs, delays and legal battles with States 
throughout the country that will further drain essential cleanup 
dollars away from the complex and simply delay progress. Many have 
highlighted the need for reform in the Department of Energy's 
management practices. I fully support this desire and pledge to work as 
chairman of the nuclear cleanup caucus to work with my colleagues and 
the administration to find ways to reform, continue to reform, the 
Department and ensure the program management's success.
  However, I do not think that we can afford to not fund the cleanup 
program which has both contractual and legal funding requirements while 
these reforms that are badly needed take hold. We must recognize that 
our field offices are enacting reforms and contract discipline 
successfully on their own and that we must continue to fund their needs 
this year, and as reforms are identified and implemented the additional 
savings be focused on this cleanup work.
  For example, at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in my district, and 
also throughout the complex but particularly here, the Department has 
recently completed contracts with most of the major contractors that 
are new commercial-type contracts. These contracts put an impetus on 
the contractor to deliver on their projects or lose their fees. This is 
a big departure from what has happened in the past.
  For example, one company in my district at Hanford agreed 
contractually to complete $2.5 billion worth of work for $2.2 billion 
through efficiencies and technology; and if they do not do that, they 
surrender their fee. I have to say this is a refreshing change to DOE 
contracting practice in the past and one that will greatly increase 
accountability throughout the complex.
  Further, by incentivizing contractors to save money by giving them a 
small percentage of the savings that they attain, we are finding ways 
to increase

[[Page 4762]]

cleanup and reduce the cost to the American taxpayer. This new 
contracting structure must continue and must be expanded. However, 
without adequate funding, these contracts will be altered; and the 
American taxpayer will lose out on the benefits that they are entitled 
to.
  So, again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both of my chairmen, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle), for their work on this legislation before us; and I ask all of 
my colleagues to support the rule and the budget resolution.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, back when he was running for President, Mr. 
Bush often said trust the people. But when it comes to the public 
health and the environment, fewer Americans trust this President's 
agenda and for good reason. He has called for oil drilling in the 
National Arctic Wildlife Refuge. He has broken his campaign promise to 
cut carbon dioxide emissions. He has even repealed new standards to get 
arsenic out of our drinking water.
  In my State of Michigan, out of 3,000 wells, 450 have high levels of 
arsenic, which we know is a killer. It is used in pesticides. It is 
used in weed killers. It kills people and it causes serious health 
problems.
  Now, the White House presents us with a budget that cuts or 
shortchanges every important environmental initiative. We heard a very 
good statement from the gentleman from Wisconsin talking about what 
this budget does to education, that it devastates the environment.
  Let me give one example. Today, millions of American families depend 
on water treatment facilities so decrepit and so outdated that the 
water they process is not always safe to drink. That is why people are 
walking around this country with bottled water. In the State of 
Wisconsin in Milwaukee, 104 people died of cryptosporidium, a bacteria 
that got into their water supply. Naturally, EPA says it is going to 
cost $1 trillion over the next 2 decades to improve our sewer systems. 
That is about $23 billion a year more than is already being spent by 
State, local, and ratepayers, governments and ratepayers. So it is 
going to take $20 billion alone over the next 30 years to fix water and 
sewer systems in southeastern Michigan alone, where we have a huge 
problem.
  Our State has a water problem. One would think Michigan, the Great 
Lake State with all the freshwater, 95 percent in the world, would be 
doing well but we have 11,000 inland lakes in our State. Every one of 
them is contaminated with mercury to the point if one is a pregnant 
woman she cannot eat the fish.
  I have beaches in my district that are closed on a constant basis 
throughout the summer because of undertreated or not treated waste that 
comes down river and into Lake St. Clair and Lake Huron of the Great 
Lakes. We are not paying attention to our most vital of resources, our 
water resources.
  In southeastern Michigan, 4.2 million men, women and children depend 
on those systems. But instead of investing in the treatment plants 
America needs, this budget, like it does in education, like it does for 
senior prescription drugs, squanders money on tax cuts for the super 
rich. It does not take care of those basic needs of education, of 
health care, and the public health and the environment on the issues 
that I have talked to.
  This may not be this administration's priorities but I want the 
American people to know it is our priorities. Most families depend on 
facilities built in large part with Federal dollars. Good sewers and 
water systems may not make for good photo-ops but they are essential to 
protecting the environment and the public health.
  It is one thing to say the people are trusted. It is another to have 
policies and agendas and a budget that is worthy of our trust.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, when I look at the Republican budget, it is 
absolutely clear to me who is taking care of the billionaires in this 
country. What I want to know is who is taking care of our children? The 
Republican budget puts children and their needs behind a $2 trillion 
tax cut that gives 45 percent of the benefit to the wealthiest 1 
percent of Americans.
  In fact, a third of our children are part of families that would 
receive zero benefit from the proposed tax cut. Let me say that again. 
One-third of the children in this Nation live in families that would 
benefit nothing from the proposed tax cut.
  In recent months, we have all heard the Republicans talk about 
helping children. Now is the time to support those words with actions 
in this budget. They will not do it. They are not doing it.
  The Democrats, however, invest in our children by providing tax cuts 
for the families that need them the most, by protecting Social Security 
and Medicare, by improving the schools for these children and, most 
importantly, by paying down the national debt for their future. By 
voting for the Democratic alternative, we will make good on a promise 
not to leave children behind, and we will then invest in our children. 
Hence, we will be investing in the future of this Nation.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the Committee on the 
Budget, I rise in support of this resolution. We have a problem facing 
our country and that is the economic forecasting which is an inexact 
science and mistakes start at the program level. For example, when 
Congress added the recent national dialysis benefit to Medicare in 
1972, forecasts used at the time predicted that the program enrollment 
would level out at 90,000 patients by 1995. Medicare actuaries now 
expect enrollment to exceed 400,000 by 2005 at a per-patient cost of 
$37,000.
  Another example is the V-22 Osprey. DOD estimated in 1986 that the 
cost would be $32 million each, measured in 2000 dollars. That has now 
doubled to $83 million. DOD has kept total project cost overruns to 
only 40 percent above original estimates by reducing the number of 
aircraft from 913 to 458. Add the uncertainty of forecasting of general 
economic conditions such as program level errors and the very ability 
of budget forecasts, even one year out worsens the problem.
  In January 1999, CBO predicted a $131 billion surplus for FY 2000; 
fully $100 billion below the $236 billion actually achieved. This year, 
CBO states that its estimated $281 billion surplus for fiscal year 2001 
could either be $50 billion too high or too low. We need to reduce the 
swing in budget projections.
  The Committee on the Budget must base its decisions on more accurate 
information. One important step in accuracy is to learn from the 
mistakes of the past. In the Committee on the Budget, we have 
bipartisan support for President Bush's testing under his education 
initiative, and that would have annual testing for students. We need to 
apply the same testing principle to the assumptions we use in budget 
forecasting.
  Another source of error in the economic forecasts have been the 
omission of real world economic responses to the estimates that assess 
the changes in government spending or taxing policy. The chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget needs the ability to request supplemental 
estimates from CBO to accurately assess the impact of policy changes 
enacted during the fiscal year on estimated Federal revenues and 
expenditures.
  These are decision tools needed by the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget. In the recent hearing that we had on this rule, I proposed 
a change that would empower the chairman, in consultation with the 
ranking minority member, to get that data. I look forward to working 
with the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), and 
other members of the subcommittee, on legislative and budget

[[Page 4763]]

process, to improve budget forecasting in the models that we use so 
that we make better decisions here in the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), who serves on the Committee on the Budget with me, 
that I agree with him indeed that our projections are an imprecise 
science and I want to add to that scenario why this makes this a 
process we are not prepared to move with. Just think of Medicaid as one 
of the instances of an unpredictable number that indeed costs so much 
to our citizens but also costs to this government. We are not prepared 
because it is indeed an unpredictable number and we are not able to 
plan as we should.
  As we plan a budget now, we should indeed have that budget to be a 
statement of our priorities. It should be a statement of who is 
important and what is important to us. It should be an opportunity of 
making choices.
  I say our budget says some profound things to us. It says that our 
first priority is to make sure we give a big tax break and yet we do 
not say that. We say that our first priority is our children or 
education or defense and agriculture, but when we look at this budget 
we see that everything else is indeed determined by how much we give 
back in the tax cut. Then we begin to say what is left we will say in 
our priorities. So we made a choice. The choice was to give back to 
those indeed who had the most, and that means that this budget is not 
fair.
  Furthermore, when we say we are committed to our farmers, in the 
Committee on the Budget, I offered an amendment that would allow this 
budget to be a statement based on soundness and fiscal reality. For the 
last 3 years, we have been funding our farmers $9 billion in emergency 
funds for the last 3 years. That is $27 billion, but this budget 
refused to take that reality into consideration, again making this 
document at its very inception mean it is worthless.

                              {time}  0945

  If we are going to make this budget a statement of facts and 
priorities and choice and soundness, we indeed need to rewrite it.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the resolution that is before us.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas for yielding me this time.
  The words of the administration and particularly President Bush 
during the campaign were: ``leave no child behind.'' I rise today to 
say those words are, at best, very hollow in this budget that is being 
offered by the Republicans and allegedly by the administration.
  For example, this budget gives no tax relief to families and less 
than 1 percent of this expands the earned income tax, while 45 percent 
of the tax cuts benefit those people who are in 1 percent of the income 
bracket. That leaves our children behind.
  The Republican budget only provides 5.7 percent of an increase to 
educate the Nation's children, less than one-half the increase Congress 
has provided in the last 5 years. This means that we jeopardize class 
size reduction, school construction, teacher recruitment, title I and 
Pell grants, after-school programs and Head Start, where the Democratic 
budget provides $129 billion for that program.
  Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues realize that children today go to bed 
hungry in America? Fifty-nine percent of all eligible families and just 
47 percent of all eligible working families are able to participate in 
the food stamp program. The Democratic budget increases that by $381 
million. It also increases the women and infant children program, but 
yet in the Republican budget we say that not only do we leave you 
behind; but we allow you to go to bed hungry and we allow you to get up 
hungry.
  We know that working families need something very vital, Mr. Speaker, 
and that is child care. Whenever I go to my district, whether it is 
two-parent families or single-parent families or families that are 
children being raised by grandparents, they all need child care. 
Republicans cut child care by cutting out CDBG funds by $200 million. 
Democrats increase it by a $2.3 billion increase over 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget is a faulty budget for our children. This 
budget should not pass. I ask my colleagues to support the alternatives 
that are put before us and provide for and promote our children of this 
Nation.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise with some concern about this particular rule for sort of a 
reason most people are not even familiar with, but it is the rainy-day 
fund or the budget reserve which was set up. I thought the chairman of 
the committee did a wonderful job of setting it up. The fact that we 
were going to have a strict way of handling emergency appropriations in 
this Congress which we have just never had before, it has always been a 
Christmas tree in the past. And unfortunately, as it wended its way to 
the floor here today, it has been watered down substantially in terms 
of leaving the definition up to the Committee on Appropriations and 
essentially they can spend it on whatever they want and then save the 
real emergencies for a separate appropriation.
  I do not think that is right. Frankly, I think this is an issue that 
we have to address in this Congress. I have introduced legislation to 
do this. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, has supported that legislation. He has 
supported the concept of what we are doing, and I think it is something 
we should do. So for that reason I am vitally concerned about the rule 
here today, and I have some great difficulty in supporting it.
  I will say about the budget itself, I think it does some good things 
in terms of tax reduction and education and other things; and I am 
sorry this point comes up, but the bottom line is that this is an area 
I think we need to address.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, some budgets are more important than others. Some years 
the budget is routine, even inconsequential. This budget this year is a 
watershed budget, much like the budget we did in 1993. It will 
determine the path we take for many years to come.
  Let me say to the committee that the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has endeavored to do a diligent, 
methodical job to cover the waterfront of the budget. We have done more 
work, the kind of work we should do, this year than we have in recent 
years, but the job is not done. That is not really to criticize him. 
The truth of the matter is, the facts are not in.
  We do not have the budget backup data; it is still to come from the 
Office of Management and Budget. We do not know what the number for 
agriculture will be, a very big add in discretionary and mandatory 
spending. We do not know what the real number for defense is. Instead, 
what we have is a budget with placeholder numbers for these two large 
and critical accounts. As to defense, for example, that is more than 
half of discretionary spending. We asked for Mr. Rumsfeld to come over 
and testify. He declined. He is in the middle of his study for the 
transformation of the United States Armed Forces. So what did we do?
  This resolution contains extraordinary authority for the chairman of 
the committee, acting unilaterally, by

[[Page 4764]]

himself, to come over and plug in a number for defense once that number 
is determined at any time up until July 25. We suspect that that time 
will be after the tax cuts. So what we are doing is authorizing 
substantial tax cuts, huge tax cuts, historically high tax cuts in this 
particular resolution, without knowing what two of the largest spending 
categories are going to be.
  There is an appearance that because of the surpluses we have we can 
have our cake and eat it too. We can have these huge tax cuts and not 
really have to cut essential programs elsewhere in the budget. But 
among other things, because we do not have this budget detail, there 
are implied budget cuts coming that will be revealed once the budget 
documents get here and hit the street after April 3.
  Let me mention just one: the President has plussed-up NIH by $2.8 
billion. So do we. It is important. However, the President's plus-up 
comes at the expense of other programs within the Department of Health 
and Human Services. It is not additional money; it is money that comes 
out of the hide of the rest of that department. There are other 
agencies like the CDC equally as important as NIH. We have not yet seen 
the documents, but we are told from documents that have been leaked or 
released that among other things, in order to pay for the NIH plus-up, 
we will cut, number one, the child care development block grant by as 
much as $200 million; number two, the account for abused and neglected 
children.
  That is why this budget should not be considered today; it should be 
put off until we have the detail to make the right kind of judgment 
about the fundamental decisions we make today in this budget resolution 
which will affect us for some years to come.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today does to the budget 
resolution what we thought would happen in the Committee on the Budget. 
It takes this contingency reserve, this strategic reserve that the 
President had in his budget and, in effect, creates a slush fund for 
the majority to fund what they want.
  As we see here, while they outline some things they want to fund, 
most of what they want to fund of the President's new spending, we do 
not know where it is. The President has asked for $260 billion in new 
spending and more to come later, and we do not know how we are going to 
fund it.
  The problem with this budget is they cut it a little too close to the 
line. Because as we see here, they leave themselves no room for error 
to end up spending Medicare and Social Security funds to fund the 
President's tax cut and the President's spending priorities that he 
has.
  This budget is too tight. The numbers do not work. What we are going 
to end up doing is spending Social Security and Medicare funds and 
shortening the life span of those two very important programs to all of 
our constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, we should reject this rule, we should reject the budget, 
and we should go back and start over in writing a real budget for the 
American people.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  I rise in opposition to the Republican budget. Let me focus for a 
moment on the whole issue of small business. Small business had been 
funded at a level of $900 million. Under the Republican proposal, it 
will be reduced to $539 million. Let me tell my colleagues what they 
are going to get rid of. They are going to reduce funding in programs 
that previously had provided access for small businesses in our country 
that are going to require them to pay up-front fees to get into some of 
the programs. It is a claim that they are going to reduce redundant 
programs. The redundant programs that they are going to reduce are the 
new market venture capitalists and the new market initiatives that were 
proposed under the past administration, programs to go into areas that 
are disadvantaged and unfunded previously.
  I say to the Republican administration and to the President, you 
claim to be a President for the business folk. The real business folk 
in our country are those who run small businesses. If you reduce those 
dollars, you kill small business.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss), my colleague on the Committee on Rules, for yielding me 
this time. I rise in strong support of this balanced rule for the 
Republican budget resolution. The rule provides for a full and free 
debate of our Nation's budget priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, the budget before us today is the hard-earned reward for 
years of fiscal discipline exercised by this Republican-controlled 
Congress. I am proud to say that this budget makes historic strides in 
paying down the Federal debt to its lowest level in more than 80 years, 
while investing in priority areas that will guarantee security for 
every generation of Americans.
  What I am talking about is a better education for every child, the 
prescription-drug plan for every senior who needs it, and the return of 
the tax surplus to the American people. This plan also provides the 
funds necessary to rebuild our defense readiness and fulfills the 
commitment to our Nation's veterans.
  This budget plan further promotes a sound economy by holding the rate 
of spending at the level of inflation, and by providing for critical 
reforms in Medicare and Social Security, by including a prudent 
emergency set-aside for natural disasters.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member, and all of the Members on 
the House Committee on the Budget for their hard-working commitment to 
produce a thoughtful bill that meets our most important priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution that this fair rule will bring to 
the floor is a responsible budget; and it will keep us on the path of 
fiscal responsibility and economic prosperity. I support the rule, and 
I urge its support by the rest of this House.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that 
this rule on the budget resolution could have done to prevent us from 
going into another decade of deficits comparable to what happened after 
the 1981 tax cut, but it does not allow any such protections to even be 
debated and voted on.
  For example, it could have put in triggers that said that if the 
surplus estimates do not materialize, then we will not cut taxes as 
deeply as is envisioned in this budget resolution, but it kept those 
triggers out. What this budget resolution says is that if the surplus 
estimates go up, we can increase the tax cut; but if the surplus 
estimates go down, we cannot reduce the tax cut. That is a recipe for 
financial ruin, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, since the tax cuts passed the House floor last month, 
the stock market has lost trillions of dollars of equity; corporations 
have come in with dramatically reduced earnings. None of that has been 
incorporated into the Congressional Budget Office estimates.
  Those stock market losses are going to be deducted against next 
year's income taxes due, and yet we are acting today as though the rosy 
economic scenceric of the last eight years is going to continue 
indefinitely. If the CBO growth estimate is off by even eight-tenths of 
a percent, $4 trillion of this projected surplus vanishes.

                              {time}  1000

  The fact is that we have a very different economy, a worse economy, a 
slower economy than is estimated in the 16 year surplus estimates upon 
which this budget resolution is based.

[[Page 4765]]

  All we are saying is, do not cut taxes if it means that our kids are 
going to have to pay off more debt, if our kids are going to have to 
provide for our Social Security and our Medicare because we have had to 
raid the trust funds in order to pay for a tax cut. That is fiscally 
irresponsible and it is selfish for the baby boom generation to reward 
ourselves and pass the bill onto our kids.
  All we are saying is, cut taxes, but only cut taxes if we can afford 
to, only if our kids do not have to pay for those tax cuts.
  This budget resolution does not do that. This budget resolution puts 
us right back into where we were in the 1980s, but this time the baby-
boom generation is not around to pay off that debt, to put us back onto 
a road of fiscal responsibility. This time the baby-boom generation 
retires after this 10-year projection is over. In 2011, the baby 
boomers retire. They are going to want their Social Security and 
Medicare, and they will have the votes to make their children pay for 
those benefits. Our kids are going to have to come up with that money. 
This is so irresponsible to do to the next generation of Americans. The 
rule should be defeated.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, recalling that the debate is on the rule 
itself, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that I support this rule because I 
support ultimately the budget.
  I support the budget for a number of reasons. Number one, I think it 
is time that we in this Congress address the national debt. I have four 
children. I want the national debt gone. I am glad that this budget 
takes a very serious look at it.
  I also believe that it is time to decrease the taxes on our citizens. 
When I was growing up in the 1970s, the tax burden on my parents and 
their generation, the income tax, was about 16 percent. Now, the 
generation before that in the 1950s had a 5 percent income tax burden. 
Today, that average tax burden is 24 percent. I think for middle-income 
Americans it is time to have tax relief. I am glad this budget takes a 
swing at that.
  Then finally, Mr. Speaker, I support this budget because it has 
commonsense spending. It keeps the priorities of education, Medicare, 
Social Security, important social service programs which government 
should be funding, and yet at the same time it says, after we take care 
of those obligations, those priorities, after we take care of those 
normal, important functions and obligations of the government, after we 
pay down the debt, we are going to return and we are going to rebate to 
the American people the money which is theirs.
  Somehow, somewhere along the way to Washington, many of us have 
forgotten this is not our money, it is the money of the hard-working 
taxpayers, and they deserve to keep as much of it as possible.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to my colleague from Georgia to 
say that he will have an opportunity to vote to pay down the national 
debt, and he will have an opportunity to vote to ensure that we meet 
our obligations, but it will not be in the underlying resolution. It 
will be in the separate substitute that will be offered that will pay 
down more debt than the President proposed and more debt than the 
Republican budget resolution would pay down.
  In addition, the gentleman is correct that we do need to meet our 
obligations first. Our obligations include not only paying down the 
national debt, but they also include meeting the obligations that we 
have made to the American people who have paid their FICA taxes for 
Social Security and Medicare.
  Unlike the Republican budget and unlike the President's budget, the 
Democratic budget substitute does not spend any of those proceeds on 
other programs. The Republican budget and the President's budget, which 
are basically one and the same, would spend proceeds in the Medicare 
and Social Security Trust Funds, thereby shortening the life span of 
those programs for current and future beneficiaries. The gentleman will 
have that choice today to vote for the separate substitute.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very clear what we have before us. We have 
basically a sham budget on the other side with the equivalent of the 
magic asterisk of 20 years ago giving the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget the authority to change great portions of the budget.
  Why can we not have a real budget? That is all that is asked on our 
side. Let us do this on the up and up. Unfortunately, the other side 
has not chosen to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge people to vote against the budget and for the 
Democratic substitute that is a real budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would certainly encourage people to vote for the rule, 
because that is actually what is before us. I am not sure where my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, comes down on that, but 
I think he supports it because he wants to get to the substitutes that 
the rule does carry and provide for.
  I would point out that it is a fair rule. It certainly is going to 
allow for extensive, full debate, I think, in a very thorough way. We 
have the Progressive Caucus substitute, the Blue Dog substitute, the 
Republican study substitute, and a Democratic substitute, in addition 
to the original work of the Committee. That is a plateful to consider 
today, and it certainly provides a number of options.
  I do not know how we on the Committee on Rules can do much better 
than that, although I understand the concern of the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) that there were some specific single amendments 
brought to the Committee on Rules by individual Members who care very 
much about these levers and controls to guarantee that we do not 
overspend, which I am very sympathetic with, but did not find place on 
this rule because of the size and nature of having to deal with a 
budget resolution and the idea that we like to use the substitute 
amendment process.
  We have already heard in a debate on the rule some very colorful 
language, some very vivid verbs and adjectives and adverbs; some scare, 
some inflammatory language, a little hyperbole. I suspect we are going 
to hear a lot more of that before the day is over.
  I have heard phrases like ``raiding the trust fund,'' billionaires 
starving children already, a little reminiscent of the days that the 
Republicans allegedly canceled the school lunch program. In fact, the 
Republicans plussed up the school lunch program, and it is in better 
shape now than it was.
  I think we need to be careful of the rhetoric. I understand that when 
we are dealing with budgets, that it is hard to be absolutely correct 
about numbers because we are projecting into the future. If we knew 
everything exactly, it would be a lot easier to do.
  But the idea that somehow we cannot go forward with a budget because 
we do not know exactly every number, it seems to me we will never get a 
budget done if we are going to wait for all those numbers to come in, 
because I would point out this is a prospective budget for the next 
fiscal year, and we are planning in order not to overspend. This is a 
prudent, responsible fiscal exercise to do that well.
  We know that government cannot do it all. Most of us know that 
government should not do it all. When it comes to jobs, people depend 
on jobs. Our quality of life depends on jobs. That requires risk-taking 
by business and entrepreneurs; small business, big business, all kinds 
of enterprise. It is the way we do it in our country.

[[Page 4766]]

  We know that business is complaining, that enterprise is complaining 
about being overregulated. We also know it is complaining about being 
overtaxed. Today we are going to try to do something for Americans who 
are overtaxed. We are going to try and send a budget forward that says 
that we recognize we are taxing too much, and now is the time that we 
can afford to do all the things government should appropriately and 
properly do for Americans in need who are counting on those programs, 
and we will still have the ability to reduce taxes on hard-working 
Americans so they can save and spend their own money instead of having 
us do it for them in Washington.
  I think one of the questions we have to ask regularly when we are 
talking about the Federal budget is, is the expenditure that is being 
considered appropriate for the Federal Government, or are there other 
ways to spend money? Because when we get into questions of spending 
Federal dollars, what we are really asking is who pays and how much.
  We know the answer to who pays: It is the taxpayers. How much? We 
know the answer to that now in America, too. We are taxing too much.
  I urge my colleagues to pay close attention to the debate today. We 
have put good debate potential on the floor under this rule. I urge 
support of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 282, 
nays 130, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 65]

                               YEAS--282

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--130

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Edwards
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Boyd
     Burton
     Callahan
     Cox
     Gordon
     Kaptur
     Kleczka
     Lampson
     McKinney
     Mink
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rothman
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1030

  Messrs. BENTSEN, ALLEN, KIND, SAWYER, EDWARDS, LUTHER, and OWENS 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. RIVERS, Mr. TAUZIN and Mr. KUCINICH changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________