[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9276-9289]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H. CON. RES. 95, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE 
                      BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 191 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 191

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2004 and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 191 waives all points of order against 
the conference report to accompany H. Con. Res. 95 and against its 
consideration. The rule also provides that the conference report shall 
be considered as read. Finally, the rule provides 1 hour of debate in 
the House to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member on the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report we will shortly be asked to 
consider is absolutely essential to our efforts to stimulate economic 
growth and to simplify and reform our Federal tax system.
  The agreement would produce steadily declining deficits, and would 
achieve a balanced budget by the year 2012. In addition, this agreement 
provides for the total supplemental appropriation necessary to fund the 
war in Iraq, and provides separate $400 billion reserve funds in the 
House and Senate for Medicare reform, including prescription drug 
coverage.
  On taxes, the budget conference report provides for total tax relief 
of $1.226 trillion during the years 2003 to 2013. For fiscal year 2004, 
the conference agreement provides for discretionary spending of $400 
billion for defense and nondefense discretionary spending of $384.4 
billion. The budget also includes $26.7 billion for the Department of 
Homeland Security, a 35 percent increase over the current fiscal year, 
and provides additional homeland security-related funds for the 
Departments of Defense, Justice and Health and Human Services.
  Of special note is a provision in the budget establishing a $5.6 
billion reserve fund over a 10-year period for Bioshield, which will 
help protect the public from emerging threats of chemical, biological, 
or radiological agents. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the 
budget agreement directs all congressional committees to identify 
existing waste, fraud and abuse and report back to the Committee on the 
Budget, with an accompanying report by the nonpartisan General 
Accounting Office.
  Mr. Speaker, we learned the hard way last year the consequences of 
proceeding with the appropriation process without a budget agreed upon 
by both Houses of Congress. It is a lesson that I believe once learned 
should never be repeated. We simply must complete our work in a 
responsible fashion. The American people expect and deserve no less. 
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule and support the 
conference report on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, since this mammoth budget was made available to Members 
of this House only a couple of hours ago, it is difficult to know 
exactly what goodies and gimmicks are hidden inside of it.
  We know enough, however, to know that this Republican budget is bad 
for the economy, bad for American working families, and bad for the 
future of our country. In other words, we know enough to vote ``no.'' I 
have to give the majority credit, though; they have brought the term 
``creative accounting'' to new heights. Never before have I seen a 
``unified'' budget conference report with two different budgets in it. 
I guess this is what they mean by ``new math.''
  Under this model of budgetary mischief, the House tax cut costs $550 
billion, while the Senate tax cut costs

[[Page 9277]]

$350 billion. It is extraordinary, it is dishonest, and it is shameful.
  Why is the Republican majority trying to get away with this trick? 
Because despite all of their rhetoric last year, they cannot get their 
own membership to agree to a single tax cut figure. They are stymied by 
a few Members of the other body who believe that maybe, just maybe, it 
is not such a great idea to spend over half a trillion dollars in tax 
cuts for the wealthy while the deficit explodes, while we are fighting 
a war overseas with unknown costs, while the baby boom generation nears 
retirement, while millions of seniors cannot afford their prescription 
drugs, and while our States are facing their worst fiscal year, their 
priorities are crystal clear. Instead of deficit reduction, economic 
stimulus, and adequate funding for things like homeland security, 
health care, veterans, education and environmental cleanup, the 
Republicans prefer tax cuts for millionaires. No wonder they do not 
want Members to read this budget.
  Now tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we are told that we will vote on the 
supplemental. That bill contains nearly $2 billion to help rebuild 
Iraq. What is striking to many people is that Congress seems to 
understand, rightly, in my view, that health care is important for the 
people of Iraq, that education is important for the people of Iraq, 
that rebuilding roads and bridges is important for the people of Iraq. 
But when we look at this budget, it is clear that the majority does not 
understand that health care or education or transportation is important 
for the people of the United States, the people who are actually paying 
for the war.
  Those people, the American people, they deserve a budget that 
reflects their priorities, not the priorities of a wealthy few. They 
deserve a budget that actually pays for its tax cuts, not one that uses 
so-called dynamic scoring to claim that one minus one equals three. 
They deserve a budget that is fiscally responsible, that does not leave 
future generations crushed by even more debt. They deserve a budget 
that helps make college more affordable, that helps pay for 
prescription drugs, that strengthens homeland security, and keeps our 
promises to our veterans.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a lot better than 
this. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and 
to vote ``no'' on the Republican budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let me put this budget in context. Two years 
ago we all hailed a projected $5.6 trillion surplus, and our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle bet the budget on that surplus, that 
blue-sky forecast.
  Two years later when the Office of Management and Budget sent us the 
budget for the next year, they acknowledged that was a vastly 
overstated estimate and that the surplus between 2002 and 2011 
correctly estimated, accounting for the economy as we now see it, it is 
not $5.6 trillion, it is, according to the Office of Management and 
Budget, $2.4 trillion, and all of that has been committed.

                              {time}  0015

  Now, there is a serious consequence that flows from that finding. It 
is simply this: Everything that is done in the way of tax reduction or 
spending increases over and above current services goes straight to the 
bottom line. There is no surplus anymore to mitigate or cushion it. It 
goes straight to the bottom line and adds to the deficit.
  Knowing this, knowing this, what do our Republican colleagues do? 
They call for $1.2 trillion in additional tax reduction, plus some big 
increases in defense and international affairs. What is the result? The 
result is that this year the deficit will be $347 billion. We will set 
a record. Back out Social Security, and the deficit is $512 billion.
  Next year, in 2004, as a result of the policy choices about to be 
made in this budget resolution, the deficit will go to $385 billion. 
On-budget, excluding Social Security, it will be $558 billion.
  Over the next 10 years, let me say it again, and, let me remind 
everybody, I am reading straight from your script, this is your budget, 
these are your numbers, over the next 10 years we will accumulate on-
budget deficits of $4,006,130,000,000, your number.
  The national debt, which today is $6.4 trillion, will increase over 
the next year by $984 billion. If you vote for this budget resolution, 
that is a direct consequence of it, using your arithmetic. Over the 
next 10 years, listen to this, the national debt ceiling will have to 
go to $12,040,000,000,000; from $6.4 trillion to 12,040,000,000,000 as 
a direct consequence of this budget resolution, according to your 
numbers.
  You say we can grow out of it. We have to get this economy on its 
feet. Goodness knows, I agree, this wobbly economy needs help. But let 
me tell you, the underlying forecast upon which these numbers are based 
assumes that the economy will grow at 3.6 percent next year, real 
growth over and above inflation, and 3.2 percent over the next 10 
years.
  You have held out the prospect of dynamic scoring, saying these tax 
cuts could boost the economy and sort of replenish the revenues that 
they will be otherwise cutting out of the Treasury. CBO undertook to 
dynamically underscore the budget, and, guess what? Using nine economic 
models, in five out of nine, the deficit actually increases as a 
results of these tax cuts.
  You say we have got to have spending cuts. Well, you have got them in 
this bill. This resolution would take domestic discretionary spending 
down by $168 billion below current services over the next 10 years. As 
for the other spending cuts, if that is what you say the prescription 
is and ought to be, where are they? Why not put them in your budget 
resolution?
  What we have got here is a recipe for disaster, and I cannot 
overemphasize the results of this budget resolution using your own 
numbers. It takes us down a path of endless deficits and deeper and 
deeper into debt, so deep that this problem becomes almost intractable.
  For those of us who were here in the 1980s and knew how long and hard 
and difficult it was to turn the budget around and put it into surplus 
again, we have an awfully forlorn, sinking feeling as we look at this 
budget, because we do not think, if you pass this budget resolution 
tonight, that we will be able to turn it around for a long time to 
come.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, as Thomas Jefferson notes in Jefferson's 
Manual, ``The minority in any legislative body looks to the rules of 
that body as its best and often only defense against the potential 
tyranny of the majority.''
  Tonight, Republicans have corrupted this House with a process that in 
the darkness of night raises the national debt to nearly $12 trillion, 
ensures that every American family ends up with a debt tax of over 
$8,000, has a budget that bleeds red as far as the eye can see, and 
that budget that began bleeding red well before September 11, and 
ensures that their tax dollars go not to invest in our people and 
health care and education and taking care of our veterans, but, no, 
goes to pay interest on this debt that you continue to raise. That is 
the real waste, fraud and abuse that you should be talking about.
  Imagine deciding on $2.2 trillion, when Members have been given only 
an hour before debate begins. Only in Washington would Republicans say 
to American families that this is prudent. What American family makes 
major financial decisions in their life in the middle of the night at 
midnight when their whole future is at stake?
  This corrupt process that will cut $6.2 billion in veterans' health 
care over the next 10 years, is there no shame, as we have men and 
women halfway around the world fighting for us and for democracy, that 
in this hallowed

[[Page 9278]]

hall of democracy a system is so corrupt that we are going to make 
major decisions about each and every American family for the rest of 
their lives.
  Vote no against the rule. It is ultimately the opportunity to 
preserve America's future and the intergenerational responsibility that 
this Republican majority has forfeited for the next generation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this budget conference report is 
the most fiscally irresponsible budget ever proposed to this House. 
When the Bush administration came into office, there was a projected 
$5.6 trillion 10 year surplus. Under this budget conference report, the 
country will pile up $12 trillion in debt over the next decade.
  We are doing it at the very time that we know that the next 
generation is going to be saddled with all of this mounting debt, 
because most of us are members of the baby-boom generation. We start 
retiring in 2008. We are going to double the number of people on the 
Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and yet we are going to 
borrow trillions of dollars from those trust funds to pay for these tax 
cuts.
  This will be the third budget built on economic policies that have 
not worked since President Bush took office. All you have offered is 
tax cuts and promises of economic growth. But instead of growth, 2.6 
million private sector jobs have been lost between President Bush's 
election and today, and, by your own estimate, this plan will generate 
over the next year only half the number of jobs that have been lost in 
just the last 2 months.
  The market value of stocks has fallen by $5 trillion since President 
Bush took office and you started these budget plans. Consumer 
confidence has dropped to its lowest level in 9 years.
  Now, in contrast, the House Democratic budget protected key services 
from cuts, we made focused investments in health care and other 
priorities and we boosted economic growth with an effective, fiscally 
responsible stimulus plan. We would have created six times the number 
of jobs that are contained in this plan, six times, when the country 
most needs those new jobs. We achieved budget balance within this 
decade. There was $1.3 trillion less accumulated debt.
  In contrast, to pay for these oversized tax cuts, the Republican 
conference report runs deeper deficits, cuts key services to the people 
who are neediest, fails to make adequate investments in this Nation's 
priorities and omits any effective economic stimulus plan.
  Vote against this embarrassment; if not for the sake of this body, do 
it for the sake of your kids who are going to be stuck with the bill 
for it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, every Republican in this House who votes on 
this bill tonight will have voted for the largest deficit in American 
history. Every Republican voting for this will have supported the 
largest single year deficit in American history, larger than every year 
during World War I, during World War II, the Great Depression and all 
other wars this country has fought.
  I will be honest, if I had a budget proposal this fiscally 
irresponsible, this dangerous to America's future, I would want it to 
pass at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning as well.
  To be fair, I will admit with my Republican colleagues that I agree 
when they say this is a growth plan. It will grow the national debt 
ceiling by nearly $1 trillion in 1 year. Once the economy finally gets 
a little bit back on its feet, it will grow interest rates. Costs for 
buying a new home will go up, costs for buying new cars will go up and 
costs for our farmers and ranchers trying to save the family farm will 
go up because of their deficit spending. As we all know and as Alan 
Greenspan has confirmed, this will drive up interest rates.
  And, yes, this is a growth plan. It will grow the debt tax on my two 
little children and their generation to a point where their future will 
be burdened severely by that level of taxation.
  Now, where I disagree with their assertion that this is a growth plan 
is in terms of economic growth. The Congressional Budget Office, in a 
report organized by one of President Bush's former top economic 
advisers in the White House, recently said this growth plan will not 
have any appreciable economic growth, and actually it could slow down 
economic growth.
  I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the kind of democracy our 
country plans to implement in the Nation of Iraq. At 1 o'clock in the 
morning we will be voting on a plan that nobody knows about that will 
harm our children with the largest deficit in the history of America. 
Vote no.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am struck by the 
unwillingness on the Republican side to speak out on this. I will give 
them credit; they know indefensibility when they have promulgated it, 
and this is indefensible.
  For a while they were complaining that last year the parties were 
unable to produce a budget, so they have overcompensated. They have 
produced 2 budgets. Because this is 2 budgets where it counts. This is 
a budget for the House and a budget for the Senate, all in one.
  Why do we have it here? We have it here to accommodate a large number 
of Republican Members in both bodies who want to say one thing in 
public and vote another way.
  This budget has to be explained. The key part of the budget, a lot of 
it is purely notional, but the key part is the reconciliation 
instructions. It has, bizarrely, for the first time in history, 
contradictory reconciliation instructions for the House and the Senate. 
The House is reconciled to $550 billion in tax cuts. Now, in the Senate 
they are only reconciled to $350 billion. That is a critical 
difference, because that means you do not need 60 votes when you 
reconcile it in the Senate; that means you can do it with 51 votes.
  The problem is that there are Senators who have said loudly, 
passionately, we will not vote for a tax cut of more than $350 billion. 
But we had a problem here in the House. I am told we had 29 Members who 
said they would not vote for less than $750 billion, and 15 that said 
they would not vote for more than $350 billion. That is 44 Members 
taking an irreconcilable position. Well, how do you get there? Thirty-
five of them did not mean it, and this budget allows them to back away.
  In particular what it does is this: This budget, by that dual 
reconciliation, allows the Senators to claim that they are only voting 
for $350 billion.

                              {time}  0030

  But the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that if a conference report 
goes back at more than $350 billion; namely, $550 billion, that will 
not be subject to the filibuster. In other words, the sole purpose of 
this dual reconciliation gimmick is to allow some Senators to pretend 
to be firmly committed to a $350 billion figure and vote for a bill 
that they know will allow them to facilitate $550 billion.
  I am reminded here of one of the great figures from literature, Big 
Daddy, from ``Cat on a Hot Tin Roof,'' because he would have hated this 
budget. My colleagues will remember how much he hated mendacity. And 
this is a monument to mendacity. This enables mendacity. The sole 
purpose of this is to allow Senators to claim they are for $350 
billion, but vote for something that they know will accommodate $550 
billion.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all 
Members that it is not appropriate to characterize the actions or 
inactions of Members of the other body.

[[Page 9279]]




                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Is it appropriate for the Senators to lie 
by voting for this budget?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry and is not in order.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have to go back home 
now to their districts and pass the commonsense test. They have to 
explain to their constituents how it is that they passed a $2.2 
trillion budget that will increase the deficit in the next 10 years by 
$4 trillion; and they did it without sufficient time to even read it, 
they did it with inconsistent and dishonest manipulation of numbers, 
and they have to explain that to their constituents. The Democrats will 
not have to, because we will say we voted ``no.'' We will pass the 
commonsense test, and those who vote ``yes'' will fail the commonsense 
test.
  My colleagues on the other side will also have to explain this: for 
the last several years they promised on television, in their mailers, 
in their speeches on this floor that they would put Social Security and 
Medicare in a lockbox. But when they talk about the deficit and they 
talk about their balanced budget, the fact is, you have raided the 
lockbox, you have broken your promises, you have broken your faith with 
the American people, and you will have to explain that. We will not, 
because we will vote ``no'' on this budget.
  And those of you from States like Washington and Iowa and Wisconsin 
and Oregon who suffer from unequal and unfair imbalances in Medicare 
payments, you will have to explain to your constituents why this budget 
does nothing to correct the unjust and imbalanced Medicare payment 
structure.
  In Washington State, 50 percent of physicians will not accept new 
Medicare patients. This week, I have had physicians in my office 
saying, I cannot afford to treat Medicare patients because the 
compensate rates in Washington are too low. We have an opportunity to 
fix that. This budget does not fix it, and you will have to explain 
that to your constituents over the next 2 weeks.
  I would give one bit of counsel to those who vote ``yes'' on this 
budget resolution. Cancel all town halls. Those who vote ``no,'' I 
encourage you to have many town halls, and let the American people see 
just what this Congress is up to. It is not pretty.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, when I came here 20 years ago, I was told 
that this was the greatest deliberative body in this world; and here we 
are discussing this huge budget and what the majority does is to 
reserve the balance of its time. Where is their argument? Where is 
their response? My Republican colleagues sit there like people of 
stone.
  So let me sum up what the facts are as I see them. Here is what the 
Republicans are saying in their budget resolution. I have heard the 
gentleman from California say, get back to the growth of the late 
1990s. They are doing it by adopting policies exactly the opposite of 
the 1990s. What my colleagues are saying is, if the hole is deep, dig 
it deeper. My colleagues try to show much in tax cuts, and now they are 
going to do it again. They have gone from a projected surplus, as we 
have said so many times, of $5.6 trillion to $2 trillion in deficits 
these next 10 years. What my Republican colleagues are saying is, when 
in debt, mortgage more and more.
  My colleagues say they are meeting a deadline. They are doing it, I 
think, clearly by dealing death to fiscal responsibility. But I want to 
say in a few words, this is worse than fiscal irresponsibility. I say 
to my colleagues, this is fiscal madness.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from 
Washington how many speakers he has.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back 
if the gentleman from Massachusetts is.
  Mr. McGOVERN. No. We have every second claimed.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to this unfair rule. Once again, the Republican Party is 
slamming their agenda through this Congress with little debate late at 
night.
  Mr. Speaker, you can tell something about a country's priorities by 
how they spend their budget. As we can see from the Republican Party's 
budget, they do not see children, the poor, the hard-working people of 
this country, minorities, health care, education, or veterans as 
important. To begin with, our Nation's veterans, on the same day that 
this House voted to commend our troops in Iraq, the Republican 
leadership pushed through a budget that cut the VA budget by $30 
billion.
  Who else is the victim of this Republican budget?
  This administration's tax-cutting plans have ruined our economy and 
have helped push African American unemployment up by 10.5 percent, and 
our country's poverty rate has gone up while the median income has gone 
down.
  This budget is also bad for public housing. HUD is slated for a huge 
cut, including plans to slash section 8 vouchers that help millions of 
low-income residents to pay their rent. They plan to zero out HOPE VI. 
This list goes on and on and on.
  I want to conclude by adding that it should not be a surprise to 
anyone that this administration has not fully funded election reform. 
Their proposal falls nearly $1 billion short from the amount authorized 
in the Help America Vote Act. In the end, the Republican Party does not 
want election reform. They are just fine with the 2000 election results 
since they came out on top, even though they did it by stealing with 
the help of colleagues from Florida. Wake up, America. Wake up. It does 
matter who is in charge.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, is anybody watching this evening? Is anyone 
watching? Talk about pulling a fast one on the American people in the 
dead of night. The Republicans are railroading their budget through the 
House late in the evening after denying Members a chance to closely 
review this budget.
  What we know is that they lied to our veterans; they are cutting 
their health care and benefits. They lied to our constituents who are 
out of work due to no fault of their own. They will not be getting any 
additional assistance in this budget. They have lied to our children. 
This budget will saddle them with trillions of dollars in new debt for 
their future. And they do this in the dark of night, hoping that no one 
is watching.
  They forget that 2.6 million new unemployed Americans know the true 
effects of this Republican economic plan, because they are watching 
this evening. They forget the 2 million Americans who are added to the 
rank of the newly poor were amongst the middle class just 2\1/2\ years 
ago. They know the true effects of this Republican economic plan 
because they are watching.
  They forget the 800,000 veterans who were told that we could not 
afford their health care costs anymore and, all the while, this 
Congress can provide a massive dividend tax cut to the wealthiest and 
the richest in this country. They know the true effects of the 
Republican economic plan, because they are watching. They think the 
American people do not see this. But do not be fooled, they do, because 
they are watching. And they know the economic ruin the Republicans have 
caused this country in just 2\1/2\ short years.
  Vote for our veterans, vote for our future, vote to keep our promises 
and be fiscally responsible. Vote against this Republican sham of a 
budget; and remember, the American people are watching.

[[Page 9280]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, since you are on the floor, 
do you think it is a coincidence that no one is in the press gallery 
when you bring this bill up? Because I do not.
  Those of you of my Republican friends, and I do consider you my 
friends, who ran on the basis of a balanced budget, if you vote for 
this budget, you lied.
  Two years ago you came to the floor and said there was a surplus. We 
owed the Social Security trust fund over $1 trillion at that time. We 
owed our own Federal Government employees' retirement system over $500 
billion at that time. We owed the Medicare trust fund over $200 billion 
at that time. And with a perfectly straight face you looked the 
American people in the eye and you talked about surpluses as far as the 
eye could see, and it was all a lie. I regret that I did not say it 
sooner.
  So tonight I am going to give you one last chance to do the right 
thing. The guy sitting over there, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert), when he was just a Member he used to come to the floor and 
wax eloquently on the need for a balanced budget amendment. You have 
been Speaker now for 1,550 days, plus or minus; and yet you have never 
scheduled a vote on a balanced budget amendment, because you know it 
gets in the way of your tax cuts.
  We are voting tonight to add another $800 billion, that is a thousand 
times a thousand times a thousand times a thousand times 800, in new 
debt in just 1 year, because you know your budget plan does not work.
  So for just once, be honest with the American people. Quit lying to 
them, because you are lying to my kids; and I cannot tell you how mad 
that makes me. It is okay to lie to me, but do not lie to my kids. Do 
not lie to those kids in Bethesda tonight at Walter Reed; do not bring 
them cookies tomorrow and tell them how much you love them and you 
respect what they have done for our country, and then stick them with 
$800 billion worth of new debt in 1 year. Because you begged for the 
privilege of running this country, but you do not want to pay the bills 
of running this country. You ought to be ashamed. I want to tell you, I 
am ashamed of you.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, since 1980, over and over again, the 
Republicans have come to this House and this Congress and this Nation 
and promised that if we just cut taxes some more, everything will be 
wonderful.
  Inscribed on the walls of the first floor of this wonderful building 
is a saying from Patrick Henry. It says: ``I have but one lamp by which 
my feet are guided. That is the lamp of experience.''
  Experience tells us that this maddening, crazy, lunatic economic plan 
that we are being presented with tonight on this floor leads us down 
the path to enormous debt. And that is all it gets us. And we know 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). Where I come from, we teach 
our children that one can go to the bad place for lying just like you 
can for stealing. Let us not steal the future from our children and 
grandchildren.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 2 minutes of our 
time to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the 
minority whip.

                              {time}  0045

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, no poor Republican member of the Committee on 
Rules who was given this assignment has risen to defend this rule. 
Certainly the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has not.
  This started out as a House joint concurrent resolution. 
``Concurrent'' meant that it would be agreed upon by both sides. They 
have dropped the ``current'' and it is now just a ``con,'' a con on the 
American people, a con on this institution.
  Tonight, they sound the death knell for the policy of fiscal 
discipline, and are poised to drive our Nation into spiralling and 
historic debt. They put us on the path to increased debt by more than 
$5.5 trillion, and then to $12 trillion.
  Here is the real kicker: There will be no debate on this stealth 
action and there will be no vote; there will only be a swelling sea of 
debt that promises to drown our future prosperity.
  Yes, it is a con job. Let us remember the unequivocal words of the 
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), which still 
reverberate throughout this Chamber. Ten years and 12 days ago, here is 
what he said: ``Here we are being asked to raise the debt ceiling so 
this government can go on borrowing money to take care of its spending 
habits. I think that is outrageous,'' said the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay). ``I hope the Members of this House will vote against 
raising the debt ceiling,'' said the gentleman from Texas, ``and I hope 
the American people will contact the Members of this House, Mr. 
Speaker, and urge them to vote against raising the debt ceiling.''
  Where is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)? Where is he when we 
raise the debt by $860 billion this year and $5 trillion over the next 
10? Where is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)?
  They claim this is an economic growth package. They claimed it in 
2001. We lost 2.6 million private-sector jobs, 4 million more Americans 
without health care, real business investment has fallen by 5.7 
percent, and 2 million Americans have moved from middle class to 
poverty. Where is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)?
  Have the integrity to stand up and vote for America's children and 
America's future. Vote down this rule. Vote down this budget.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all 
Members that their remarks should be directed to the Chair and not to 
other Members of the body.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues, this is a rule to consider 
a conference report on the budget. This is a very difficult budget 
because we are in a war.
  I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first budget conference 
report in 2 years, because last year we did not have a budget because 
the other body did not adopt a budget; and we had to go through this 
process and ended up with an omnibus, which I think made everybody 
unhappy.
  But we have completed our work this year. We are supposed to have a 
budget this time of the year. We knew we were going to break around 
Easter. The Committee on the Budget chairman, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle), has done a terrific job. I commend him for the job that 
he has done. I think we will have a debate on the content of the budget 
when we adopt this rule so we can take up the conference report.
  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. McGOVERN. 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 221, 
nays 202, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 140]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)

[[Page 9281]]


     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
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     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)

                               NAYS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     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)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (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
     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
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Boehner
     Combest
     Delahunt
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Lewis (CA)
     McCarthy (MO)
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette) (during the vote). The Chair 
would advise all Members there are 2 minutes left in this vote.

                              {time}  0106

  Mr. BELL and Ms. McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 191, I call up 
the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) 
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 2004 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 191, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)
  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 H. Con. Res. 95, the conference report considered this evening.
  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, the conference report maintains the three principles of 
the budget resolution that was passed by the House of Representatives a 
few weeks back. We set forth three important principles that we felt 
were important as we considered the priorities for our Nation.
  Number one was protecting America. We felt that that was a 
nonnegotiable item both in terms of homeland security and national 
defense. We felt that, as we considered the budget for next year, we 
needed to ensure that the President's requests were met in order to not 
only protect our country at home, but also deal with challenges abroad.
  At the time we wrote the budget, we were not even sure exactly how 
the war against terrorism might be proceeding, let alone, at that time, 
the potential war against Iraq.
  Tonight, we stand at the possible threshold of a victory that we all 
celebrate and honor. We appreciate the service of our troops. But as we 
discuss the budget, we know that we need resources in order to fuel 
their force and their might around the world. This budget accomplishes 
that feat.
  The second principle was to strengthen the economy and create jobs. 
And I know there will be differences of opinion on this issue. Mr. 
Speaker, on the second principle of strengthening the economy and 
creating jobs, there is a difference of opinion, and that is very 
clear, between the minority and the majority.
  What we believe our budget accomplishes is an economic growth 
package, yes, smaller than the one that was originally written. We 
definitely get the entire growth package within this negotiation that 
the President requested. Probably nobody in this budget got everything 
they wanted, I can attest to that, but I can tell you that it sets up a 
debate and a process for us to consider some important legislation on 
growth, on tax simplification, on tax reform, to get the economy going 
and growing again.
  Now, we know from hearings and testimony of some very important and 
learned economists, including Alan Greenspan, it is going to take a 
little bit of push and shove from a fiscal standpoint in order to get 
the economy

[[Page 9282]]

growing again. We accommodate this in the budget with an instruction to 
write a tax bill at $550 billion over the next 10 years.
  But do not kid anybody. Within the scope of the tax bills that have 
been passed for this country in the past, this is not a large tax bill. 
And we will discuss the specific policy at another time when the 
Committee on Ways and Means, following that instruction, brings the tax 
bill forward.
  The third important principle that we sought to achieve was fiscal 
responsibility, and in this regard what we tried to do is do two 
things. One is limit spending. The original bill, as Members will 
remember, that passed the House had what I would call some pretty bold 
attempts to not just go after the Committee on Appropriations and the 
appropriations bills that are on the floor for the next, hopefully, 3 
months, 4 months, both in terms of the initial consideration, as well 
as their conference reports that we will haggle over, an amendment here 
and an amendment there, for a million here and a million there; and, 
yes, all of that does add up, while two-thirds of the budget in 
entitlement spending goes unchecked, unreformed, undiscussed in many 
respects, and, in fact, in many respects just added onto.
  We set up a process. That process has been rejected. That is fine. We 
live to fight another day. But within this budget that we say is for 
fiscal responsibility, we need to start that process. It is not just 
the duty of the Committee on Appropriations to look for savings within 
the budget.
  Friends from all of the authorizing committees, it is all of our 
duties to look for savings; waste, fraud and abuse are certainly part 
of it, but reforms to ensure that these entitlement programs work in 
the most beneficial and efficient way for the people that they are 
intended for.

                              {time}  0115

  While no one can come to the floor tonight, although I heard during 
the rule debate quite a discussion about cuts here and cuts there, I do 
not know what you are discussing because there are no cuts in this 
budget when it comes to those mandatory programs; but we do set up a 
process to get the committees of jurisdiction to begin looking for that 
waste, fraud and abuse and to report back to the Committee on the 
Budget their findings.
  We also within here limit the growth of spending overall. Spending 
over the last 5 years in particular since we reached balance has been 
explosive, and even with that explosive spending, which has been added 
into the baseline, there are people who come here tonight who are 
suggesting we are not spending enough, and in fact, we may never ever 
spend enough.
  In fact, the letters to the Committee on Appropriations are already 
piling up for requests for additional spending. There were amendments 
in our committee, and there will be amendments in more committees for 
more and more and more spending. You may not do that and come to the 
floor here tonight and tell us that it is wrong for us to increase the 
debt ceiling.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I believe the Chair 
has directed speaker after speaker this evening that we should address 
the Chair. I do not believe this is the way this is being done, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All Members should direct 
their remarks to the Chair. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his 
observation.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, Member after Member has come to the floor, 
Mr. Speaker, and told us about the debt and explained to us how the 
debt is going to increase under just the Republican version of the 
budget. Let us take a look at the Democrat version of the budget.
  Yes, it is true we increase the debt at a time when we are at war, at 
a time when we are at an economic disadvantage, at a time when we have 
had a national emergency. Do we ask to increase the debt? Yes, we do. 
We ask to increase the debt a little over $880 billion. Shocking amount 
of money, is it not?
  How much does the Democrats bill ask us, Mr. Speaker, to increase the 
debt? About the same amount of money. Oh, that is, of course, not going 
to be discussed here tonight because, of course, they only want to 
focus on the Republican plan.
  Well, we have got a plan and it is a good plan, and it deals with the 
priorities of America, protecting America, being fiscally responsible 
and getting the economy going again in creating jobs. But do not come 
to the floor and tell us about our big debt increase when you ask for 
more money, when your letters pile up at the Committee on 
Appropriations, and when your alternative Democrat plan raised the debt 
ceiling as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me make it clear to the gentleman, my good friend, the chairman 
of the committee, in the budget resolution we presented to the House, 
at the end of the year 2013, which is the last year in the 10-year time 
frame, our budget produced $1.3 trillion less debt than theirs, $1.3 
trillion less debt. We laid it before the House. We got to a balanced 
budget, a unified balance in 2010. You do not get to one in this budget 
until 2012, and then it is only $9 billion. Any kind of turbulence in 
the economy would undo that.
  There is a drastic difference between the two, and that is one of the 
reasons we were proud to present our budget resolution, to show there 
is an alternative.
  This is not a necessary course of action. This is self-inflicted pain 
by your insistence on doing $1.2 trillion in additional tax cuts when 
there is no more surplus and that automatically increases the debt by 
$1.2 trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this does not belong on the House floor 
tonight. This budget belongs on ``Laugh In.'' This is not a budget. It 
is two-headed tax cuts. It is a two-headed flim flam.
  The economy is in crisis. The economy has lost 70,000 jobs per month 
every month of the Bush Presidency, and the Republican Congress tonight 
abdicates its responsibility to lead.
  A few years ago, the Committee on the Budget Chair came to this House 
floor with a bag on his head. If I brought this budget to the floor 
tonight, I would ask where is that bag when I really need it?
  This budget is a disgrace to this institution. It fails its 
responsibilities to this institution, to the country, and to every 
person who is out of a job looking for economic leadership to put this 
country back together again.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, it is approximately 1:20 a.m. in the morning 
here on the east coast; and pinch me if I am dreaming, but the 
Republican majority is about to pass a budget resolution that calls for 
an increase in our national debt by $984 billion in this next fiscal 
year and close to $6 trillion over the next 10 years, and this is using 
their own numbers. That is using their own scorekeepers.
  This budget is disastrous for our economic future, but do not believe 
me. Believe a few reputable souls, namely, Bob Kerry, Sam Nunn, Pete 
Peterson, Bob Ruben, Warren Rudman and Paul Volker who wrote yesterday 
together, ``Congress cannot simply conclude that deficits don't matter. 
They raise interest rates higher than they would be otherwise. They 
raise interest payments on the national debt. They reduce the fiscal 
flexibility to deal with unexpected developments. If we forget these 
economic consequences we risk creating an insupportable tax burden for 
the next generation.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am the father of two little boys. I did not come to 
this Congress to leave a tremendous legacy of debt for them and their 
generation. This is morally irresponsible. I encourage my colleagues to 
vote ``no.''
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  After all the words that have been spoken tonight about this budget, 
it

[[Page 9283]]

really comes down to one fundamental issue: Do we want to lay on our 
children a higher national debt carried by our country or do we want a 
responsible budget? This budget authorizes immediately $984 billion, 
nearly $1 trillion in higher borrowing authority. You have got to 
figure something is wrong with the plan if right out of the gate you 
have got to borrow $1 trillion to make it work; but that is just a 
start because over the next 10 years the borrowing doubles, nearly 
doubling the national debt, just before the baby boomers move into 
retirement drawing on Social Security, drawing on Medicare.
  There is not a family we represent who prepares for retirement by 
roaring up the debt on their credit cards, blowing everything they have 
got, just letting the kids provide. So what in the world are we doing 
tonight, representing all the Nation's families to put our Nation on 
exactly that course? Growing the dough, borrowing the money, letting 
our kids straighten this out?
  This is wrong. We must reject this totally fiscally irresponsible 
approach to our national budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, a close read of this conference report provides for 
transportation infrastructure programs, little more than the status 
quo, $41.7 billion for the coming fiscal year. If that is what the 
majority is presenting to us, this report does nothing to begin to 
address the needs of highway and transit systems at a time when we have 
huge unmet safety and security needs, congestion is crippling our city, 
the economy has lost 2.5 million jobs.
  On a closer reading, though, there is a curious anomaly in the budget 
resolution's contingency procedure for surface transportation. Section 
411 of this conference report provides contract authority for TEA-21 
reauthorization for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009. For amounts 
above the levels specified for those years, Congress must pass 
legislation to increase receipts to the highway trust fund such as 
increasing the purchasing power of the user fee.
  If we pass such a highway user fee increase, the Committee on the 
Budget chairman, according to the language I have read, may increase 
the budget allocation to our committee. However, under the conference 
report before us, the chairman can increase that allocation only for 
years 2004 through 2008. No increase for 2009, even if we increase the 
user fee to provide for that additional infrastructure investment. That 
means you get no benefit from the increase in funding that our 
committee might enact.
  I do not think that that is what the Republican majority intended, 
Mr. Speaker; and I hope you are not going to vote for it.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to just be able to 
respond and say we increase the transportation fund $30 billion. I 
cannot believe that the gentleman would suggest that that is a paltry 
sum, number one; and, number two, you better get with the other 
communicators, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, because they are talking 
about not increasing the debt. Spending more money, seems to me we have 
got to increase that debt.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, this is why legislation of this consequence 
should not be brought up at 1:30 in the morning with no prior notice.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the 
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, no matter which way we voted on the war 
resolution, I think we all come together hoping that we have a package 
for those heroic people that fought the war in the Middle East, and 
that when they come home that we will be able to treat them as heroes 
and have a veterans package for them.
  One would think, however, since we have not the slightest clue of how 
long the occupation is going to take, where we will have to go next in 
the region, what the total price is going to be to have democracy 
installed in Iraq, that before we even think about borrowing money and 
having a tax cut, that we would wait and see in a rational way what 
would be the cost to the United States of America.
  It is true we have no friends to go to to help pay for the cost of 
the war, and we do not even know how long this is going to continue, 
notwithstanding the fact that we call a victory; but I think that in 
the short run what we are talking about is that the majority in this 
House really does not want to see this great Republic provide any 
public service.
  They have advocated eliminating corporate taxes altogether. They have 
advocated letting Medicare just turn softly, slowly in the wind. They 
have advocated privatizing Social Security; and at the end of the day, 
they will tell you that these would be the responsibilities of the 
State and local government. But ask the Governors and ask those in the 
States how they treated them in this budget. Ask the local community, 
the firemen and the policemen how are they treated.
  They will do anything and say anything in order to say at the end of 
the day nobody pays taxes except the working people. They fight our 
wars, they pay our taxes; but the wealthy at the end of the day are the 
recipients. Is this what we call shared sacrifice? I think not.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to just say the 
gentleman from New York has not referenced one provision within our 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), the chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding 
time to me.
  First of all, I want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and all those Members who supported our efforts to 
provide higher funding for veterans benefits and services. It is 
important to note that the Nussle budget reflects an agreement on 
veterans spending that was reached before the House voted on the budget 
last March 21.
  Chairman Nussle honored his commitment, and he delivered. The budget 
includes new budget authority for veterans in fiscal year 2004 of $63.8 
billion, a $6.2 billion increase in budget authority over 2003. Of 
that, $3.4 billion, or 12.9 percent, will be devoted to discretionary 
spending, the bulk of which is for medical care.
  It is important to note that every penny of that increase is 
justified by the compelling needs, the medical needs of our veterans.

                              {time}  0130

  I would point out to my friend that, in a hearing I chaired earlier 
this year, Dr. Robert Roswell, who is the Under Secretary for Health, 
testified that we needed about 13 percent to take care of our core 
veteran population. This budget hits that number right on the mark. My 
colleagues can laugh all they want. It hits it right on the mark.
  I am also happy to point out that this budget, pursuant to the 
agreement before we voted on March 21, requires no cuts whatsoever in 
mandatory spending. Let me just remind my colleagues that the budget 
offered by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) was $1.6 billion less in budget authority than 
the budget being presented on this floor today.
  So when I hear about veterans, I have been on that committee for 23 
years, and this budget is good for veterans. And I would hope that 
Members would look at this and stop the rhetoric that is distortion and 
misrepresentation.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to the gentleman.
  First of all, when the budget resolution before us now left the 
committee, it provided for $30 billion in Veterans Administration cuts, 
as the gentleman well knows.
  Let me have the time.
  Thirty billion dollars. It was reduced to $28 billion when it left 
the floor. When it comes out of conference and

[[Page 9284]]

comes to us tonight, it is $6.2 billion less than current services over 
the next 10 years. And I say to the gentleman from New Jersey that this 
is $8.2 billion lower than the amount that our budget resolution 
provided when we had it on the floor and offered it as an alternative, 
$8.2 billion lower in this resolution today, and $6.2 billion below 
current services. This is a cut.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is the dirty secret that Republicans do 
not want to admit. We did not control spending. That is Chairman 
Nussle, some 15 days ago. The Committee on the Budget says Republicans 
believe repaying the debt is the right thing to do. It says, in its 
report dated March 13, 2001, it is wrong for this generation to saddle 
future generations with debt.
  It has taken them some less than 2 years to change that view and 
proceed to create gargantuan debt. And my colleagues, we considered 
this budget some days ago, and the sun did not set for six times until 
they came to this floor and for 40 minutes railed against the 
gentleman's motion to instruct, the motion of the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt). For 40 minutes the Republicans railed against 
it, and then they voted for it.
  They voted for it because they knew the cuts that were proposed in 
that budget were not sustainable, were not supportable. Yet they all 
voted for it and they flip-flopped 6 days later. How short a memory my 
colleagues have.
  My Republican colleagues say they are against debt. The chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget has gotten up on this floor time after time 
and said, we need to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. Let me just say 
that the waste is the time and the paper we have used to consider this 
resolution, which sadly simply reflects a deep division within the 
Republican Party reflected by this fiscal irresponsibility.
  This budget will not be followed. Hear me. My colleagues will not 
follow it any more than they followed the budget that the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) offered last year and for which my colleagues 
voted last year. It was never adopted. Eleven appropriation bills sat 
in our committee. Why? Because Republicans could not get the votes on 
their side of the floor to pass them, consistent with their budget, 
because they were not real.
  The fraud is on the American people. The fraud is on the young people 
of America. The fraud is on the veterans, I say to my friend from New 
Jersey. The fraud is in the rhetoric that Republicans have used seeking 
support from their constituents seeking fiscal responsibility.
  And the abuse, my friends, of the fraud, waste and abuse, the abuse 
is the abuse of process which the consideration tonight of this budget 
with just hours' notice reflects. Yes, there is fraud, waste and abuse, 
and it is within this budget. Reject it. We can do better. We should do 
better. We must do better.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition 
to this fiscally irresponsible conference report. I believe in tax 
relief for all Americans, and I supported the President's tax relief 
package, but this budget comes to us late this evening and it contains 
a 10-year $1.2 trillion tax cut that we simply cannot afford.
  It is particularly disturbing because of the war in Iraq, the global 
war on terror, and in the midst of a full-blown recession, all of which 
have very serious consequences on the financial solvency of our Nation 
for the next generation. This budget adds gasoline to the fiscal fire 
that is burning out of control with no end in sight.
  Do not take my word for it, because more than 400 economists concur 
that this budget stifles economic growth and will cause greater 
deficits, increase job losses, and will make a harsh, harsh climate for 
businesses.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to stand up for Americans and for our 
children who are sure to pay the tab laid before us this evening. Vote 
``no'' on this conference report. Vote for something that is fiscally 
responsible, not this irresponsible garbage.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the committee.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the budget that we 
have before us today is one that we should all be proud of. What we are 
doing is, we are keeping our promise on education aid. Education aid is 
up, over 6 percent over the 2003 level. Pell Grants are up 12 percent.
  And, Mr. Speaker, particularly in my district, where I have a large 
number of veterans, it is very important that the veterans understand 
that we are $6.2 billion over the fiscal year 2003 figures. That is a 
10.7 percent increase. And in discretionary spending, which is health 
care, where there is a long wait in my State on Priority 8, where 
veterans are having to wait up to 18 months for service; we are 
increasing that amount by 12.9 percent.
  We are keeping our promise on education. We are able to provide the 
veterans benefits that are necessary, and we also are making sure that 
the uninsured at least have a start and a chance at having some 
insurance.
  Children's health care, which is very important in every single 
State, whether it is called SCHIP in some States, or we called it 
KidCare, it is up by $14 billion, a 9 percent increase.
  Sure, we had to postpone when we balanced the budget to 9 years, but 
we are at war, we have a downturn in the economy, and this budget 
answers what I believe the majority of the constituents in the State of 
Florida absolutely need. What it does is it also protects Medicare and 
puts additional funding into Medicare of 7.7 percent more.
  That is a responsible budget, and that is one that I can go home very 
proudly and tell people that these are the figures that we have in our 
budget while still insisting that every agency go after fraud, waste 
and abuse. That is responsibility, my colleagues.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond that if my colleague will read closely, she will see that there 
is a function called function 920, and in it she will see $128 billion 
in undistributed cuts. So all of these adds, all of these gains she is 
talking about, could very well be wiped out, and probably will be, once 
those cuts are distributed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on the very day that our young men and women 
in uniform saw the fruits of their sacrifices in the faces of cheering 
Iraqis, the majority party in this Congress will vote to saddle their 
generation with $4 trillion in debt. Tonight, my colleagues will charge 
these young patriots with the burden of paying for the war they so 
willingly and valiantly fought.
  While America's finest risk their lives and sacrifice for our 
country, the Republican leadership tells the rest of America, your 
contribution to the call of duty will be to get $700 billion in tax 
cuts that will be paid for by the generation of young soldiers who 
fight in Iraq tonight.
  Never in the history of this Nation have we been at war and refused 
to ask every American to join in the sacrifice. Instead, our Republican 
majority turns a blind eye to the $25 trillion unfunded liability in 
Social Security and Medicare, they turn a blind eye to future national 
and homeland security needs of this Nation, they weaken our ability to 
respond to future threats by disarming our fiscal strength, and they 
rush headlong down the path of higher interest rates, dwindling 
national savings, and burdensome debt.
  Cast a vote tonight for the generation that has made us proud in Iraq 
today. Vote ``no'' on the Republican budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say that 
if our budget is so irresponsible, why is it that the budget that the 
gentleman supported, the very distinguished gentleman who is a member 
of, I believe, the Blue Dog coalition, why did he support a budget that 
increased the national debt by almost a similar amount? I would suggest 
that he needs

[[Page 9285]]

to look at his own budget before criticizing the budget in the 
conference report.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this is the most irresponsible budget in 
our Nation's history. It adds almost $6 trillion to the public debt, 
with $1.2 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. It will do 
serious, long-term damage to our economy, compromising our ability to 
address the most serious challenges facing us.
  For the third year running, the Republicans are proposing a budget 
that lays the groundwork for increasing the deficit while again failing 
to stimulate the economy. Time and again, Republican budgets offer tax 
cuts and promise economic growth, yet all we have to show for it is a 
net loss of 2.6 million jobs, a stock market that has fallen by $4.6 
trillion, and consumer confidence that has dropped to its lowest level 
in nearly a decade.
  A responsible budget provides hope, it lifts people up, it gives us a 
blueprint for our future, a view of our government's priorities. But 
this budget lets the people of this country down. The Republican 
leadership puts massive tax cuts ahead of the interests of the American 
people. This budget does not reflect our values, our priorities as a 
Nation, a Nation at war.
  The Republicans pay for these tax cuts on the backs of disabled 
veterans, college students and children. It places massive unfunded 
mandates on our States at a time when our States are facing the worst 
fiscal crisis since World War II. This budget flies in the face of all 
that we believe, all that we ought to be dealing with as a Nation 
because budgets are about choices.
  I believe that the current budget resolution does not deal with the 
issues that are a priority in this country. This Republican budget 
reflects the wrong values and the wrong priorities for America, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Feeney).

                              {time}  0145

  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Committee on the 
Budget and the chairman for the fine work they have done during 
admittedly very difficult times, internationally and at home.
  I must admit, I have spent the last 3 hours listening to some great 
debates, but I do not know exactly where they are coming from. I feel 
like I am getting economics lessons from the same folks that taught 
geography to the Flat Earth Society.
  What I am hearing from the same folks is the same philosophy that for 
3 or 4 decades now has taken the position that we can spend, spend, 
spend our way out of trouble, is that we ought to somehow shrink a 
deficit that has been created largely over 30 or 40 years of spending.
  The truth of the matter is that there are two approaches being taken 
here tonight. One side is advocating that we can spend our way out of 
trouble. The other side is advocating that we can grow our way out of 
trouble. The economic stimulus package that we are talking about, in 
the Kennedyesque style of the early sixties and the Reaganesque style 
of the 1980s is such that it will produce the same amount of growth 
that those great Presidents produced when they took the position that 
we can grow our way out of tough economic times.
  I would remind Members from both sides of the aisle that in the 
aftermath of the victory in World War II, we had deficits that were 
much higher as a percentage of gross domestic product. We are now 
winning the war. As Prime Minister Thatcher said, Reagan won the Cold 
War without firing a shot. Yes, we had deficits, but after that, 
because of the low marginal tax rates, we had the highest period of 
sustained economic growth in history. Yes, we are winning the war on 
terror; we are winning the war in Iraq; and with Members' help, we can 
win the war to stimulate our economy by supporting this budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) so he can set the record straight with respect to 
the Blue Dog budget, and I do not have enough time to correct all of 
that economic fiction.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I wish we could avoid speaking untruths on 
this floor.
  As the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) knows, the Blue Dog budget 
balanced without using Social Security in 2013. The budget you have on 
the floor tonight will not balance without using Social Security by 
2013. You will not come within $300 billion.
  And to the last speaker from Florida, you cannot borrow and spend 
your way to prosperity, either. That rhetoric, that dog, will not hunt. 
You are going to borrow $984 billion. Under your budget, you are going 
to borrow more money in the last year than we borrowed in the first 205 
years of this country. We cannot borrow and spend our way to 
prosperity, either.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair reminds all 
Members that remarks are to be directed to the Chair and not to other 
Members in the Chamber.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, just to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), 2013, that seems like a long way away. Let us talk about 
next year and what the Blue Dog budget does next year. It increases the 
debt limit. That is interesting. There are lots of complaints about 
raising the debt limit; but both of the alternatives provided by the 
other party raise the debt limit in 2004. Spend a lot of money, even 
had a tax cut. All of these complaints seem to be very curious when 
they come to the floor and are complaining about raising the debt 
today. The debt limit increase was almost identical to the conference 
report that we are providing here tonight.
  So it is fine that you can come here and wax philosophical about what 
is going to happen in 2013, but what happens next year, let us focus on 
that is what I would suggest. The two budgets that were presented by a 
majority of caucus from the Democratic side increased the debt limit. 
In addition, to that we have heard time and time again here tonight how 
we are not spending enough. I will guarantee Members that as we get 
into the appropriation season, we will hear speech after speech after 
speech telling us how we are not spending money for this and how we are 
not spending enough money for that, and how we have not made it a 
priority here and how we have not made it a priority there. And I would 
say to the whip who came and quoted me and said I had a dirty little 
secret about the Republican Party and the fact that we like to spend, I 
will tell Members, it is not a secret that the Democrats like to spend.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
budget. This budget severely underfunds education and shortchanges our 
Nation's children. Here we are 2 years after Members from both sides of 
the aisle pledged to leave no child behind, and yet we are considering 
a budget that cuts billions from the No Child Left Behind Act. Instead, 
this budget produces huge deficits for our children to pay off, yet 
fails to provide them with the resources they need to drive the economy 
of tomorrow. This budget is not what our children need. This budget is 
not what America needs. I urge Members to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this budget resolution is designed to 
enrich the rich at the expense of economic growth for all Americans. It 
means larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, larger trade 
deficits. It will take capital away from business investment while 
underinvesting in education and infrastructure.
  Senate tax cut, $350 billion. House tax cut, $550 billion. Ultimate 
tax cut, $1.2 trillion. Knowing you can pass the

[[Page 9286]]

entire cost to future generations, priceless.
  Allowing corporations to escape American taxes just by renting a 
hotel room in the Bahamas, $4 billion. Cutting veterans benefits, $6 
billion. Cutting education, law enforcement, et cetera, $168 billion. 
Setting up a $1.2 trillion tax cut while allowing Senators to pretend 
it is only $350 billion, priceless. Republicard, and get the new 
Deficit Express Card with the $12 billion credit limit.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members that it is not 
appropriate to characterize the other body.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we know that you know that this 
is not a budget you can be proud of because if you were proud of this 
budget, you would not be bringing it up between 1 and 2 a.m. in the 
morning when most of the American public is asleep.
  I do not think that you are going to share with your children or 
grandchildren what you have done to them, creating $12 trillion of debt 
that they will have to pay back. You are not going to share with them 
the fact that you and your generation are going to be retiring, most 
Members over the next decade, doubling the number of people on the 
Social Security and Medicare rolls, at just the time when you are 
borrowing trillions of dollars from those trust funds in order to 
reward yourself and your supporters, your political supporters with 
deep tax cuts.
  Here you tell us that there is a war on so we need to do this. There 
is not one dime in this budget for the war in Iraq, not one dime. 
Members know that is in the 2003 supplemental. That is not in this 
budget. This is a budget that needs to be defeated. Do it for our 
children.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to myself.
  Mr. Speaker, the war supplemental is in the budget that we are 
presenting.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, over in Iraq the Air Force is preparing to 
deploy its newest bomb, the MOAB, the mother of all bombs, if needed, 
against the remaining Republican Guards.
  Meanwhile, back in Washington, the House of Representatives 
Republican guard is now deploying its very own legislative MOAB, the 
mother of all budgets; and it is a mother. This Republican legislative 
MOAB blows a huge crater into our economy, irresponsibly piling up $1 
trillion of new debt, increasing the debt limit by $860 billion.
  The Republicans say Osama ate our budget homework. Saddam ate our 
surplus; it is not our fault. But it is their fault. I would say to 
those Members who would vote for this budget, they have the freedom to 
choose whether or not to cut taxes for the richest in our country at a 
time of war and national emergency, and they have made their decision 
to drop this legislative MOAB into the middle of our economy, and the 
collateral damage will hit the poorest in our society.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask Members on both sides of 
the aisle to respect the gavel and only speak for the time yielded to 
them by the managers of the bill.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and hope he can set the record straight.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I always appreciate the chance to come to the well of the 
House.
  I listened with interest to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey). What passes for wit in the early morning on the east coast of 
the United States, and I know perhaps given the deliberations some are 
giddy, but I would just remind us that rhetorical flourishes about 
Saddam eating homework or Osama eating homework are not funny; they are 
tragic. Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation at war, we are a Nation at war, 
and to have this type of disrespect brought into this debate speaks 
volumes on the nature of the opposition this evening.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) to straighten out the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate if the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle) would listen, and if the gentleman disagrees, to 
disagree with me again. If the gentleman looks at the Blue Dog budget, 
we would have $1.8 trillion less deficit over 10 years and $120 billion 
less deficit next year.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, how much do you increase the debt limit for 
next year?
  Mr. STENHOLM. The debt limit for next year, everybody increases the 
debt limit for next year. The reason we do it is because the budget you 
voted in place in 2001 and 2002 has dug us this hole. We are suggesting 
in the Blue Dog budget to stop digging the hole deeper. We have got to 
stop digging the hole deeper. You want to keep digging it deeper and 
deeper and deeper, but you misrepresent totally the Blue Dogs because 
we do not spend one dime more than you propose spending in your budget 
tonight. We also have $1.8 trillion less debt over the 10 years, and 
$120 billion next year. That is not small potatoes.

                              {time}  0200

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thought about characterizing the 
Republican budget as a bad budget, but that is not really right, 
because it is not a budget, it is a ``fudget.'' It fudges cuts in 
veterans affairs, it fudges the tax cut you cannot reconcile yourself 
to, and it fudges the biggest deficit in American history.
  I thought about characterizing it as a budget fit for the Titanic, 
because we do have a disaster in the economy, a surplus turned into a 
deficit, the largest unemployment for years. But it is really not a 
Titanic budget, because the captain of the Titanic only rammed the 
iceberg once. You want to do these tax cuts twice in the hopes the 
iceberg will sink.
  You made a mistake. You ought to face it. Let us defeat this budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the distinguished vice chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, in my 28 years experience being in politics, 
I do know that speaking at 2 in the morning is not wise, and I usually 
avoid doing that. It took me awhile to figure that out, because I 
always made enemies when I spoke late at night.
  As I was listening to the dialogue of my colleagues discussing the 
rule, I heard a lot of passion, I heard a lot of anger. The difference 
is we actually have to pass a budget and you do not.
  The best example to me is you are talking about your budget, the Blue 
Dog budget, that did not even get close to a majority of votes and did 
not even get all the votes on your side of the aisle. We can only 
afford to lose 11 votes on our side of the aisle, because we know that 
there is not one, Mr. Speaker, on that side of the aisle that will help 
us pass a budget. And that is the challenge.
  When we passed our budget out of the Committee on the Budget, which I 
was proud of, and balanced the budget in 7 years, the amendments to 
that budget in that committee debate added up to $983 billion over the 
next 10 years.
  We never had a debate with President Clinton where he said we spent 
too much. The only way we could get out of town was we had to spend 
more. That is a fact.
  The problem is, even tonight, my colleagues, seriously, think about 
this: You say we are cutting. Only in Washington when you spend 9 
percent more, or $14.6 billion more, would people call it a cut. That 
is what we add in Medicaid. Only in Washington when you

[[Page 9287]]

spend $17.8 billion more, or 7.2 percent, would people call it a cut. 
Only in Washington when you spend $5.4 billion more in transportation, 
or an 8.4 percent increase, would people call it a cut. Only in 
Washington when you spend $6.2 billion more for veterans, a 10.7 
percent increase, would people call it a cut.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I know that you all do not like this budget, but I 
also know if you were in the majority, you would not be able to pass a 
budget, sadly. On this side of the aisle we have come together, we have 
done our best, and I am proud of it. And we scored our tax package. We 
have a tax package that we would, if we could, pass a $627 billion tax 
cut. We put it under reconciliation at $550. So there is $77 billion 
that is not going to be under reconciliation.
  This is a good budget. It is a budget we know we can pass, and we are 
going to do it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, let me respond to my good friend the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) by saying in 1990 when we did the budget summit 
with President Bush and passed it, do you recall who put the votes on 
the board to pass that? It was not your side. In the second vote, only 
80 Republicans voted for President Bush's budget summit agreement. That 
laid the foundation for what happened in the 1990s.
  In 1993 we put every vote on the board by one to pass the Clinton 
budget, and every year thereafter the budget deficit declined for 8 
straight years, to the point where in 2000 the budget was in surplus by 
$236 billion.
  We also came together in a bipartisan way on the balanced budget 
agreement of 1997, with President Clinton solidly supporting it. It 
never would have worked otherwise. So three times with tough votes we 
bellied up to this problem.
  And we took the deficit of $290 billion the last full fiscal year of 
the Bush administration and turned it into a surplus of $236 billion. I 
would say to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), we put the 
votes on the board to make that happen. That is a fact, an undisputable 
fiscal fact.
  Let me in closing say how far we have come in the wrong direction in 
the last 2 years. We have got a chance tonight to turn this ship around 
by voting down this budget resolution.
  Two years ago we were talking about paying off all the debt held by 
the public by the year 2008. Now we have raised the debt ceiling, with 
the passage of this resolution, twice since then. Vote for this 
resolution and you will vote to raise the debt ceiling $984 billion, 
and, between now and 2013, to raise the debt ceiling to 
$12,040,000,000,000. That is a fact that comes from your numbers. That 
is how far we have come, and that is where we are headed, unless you 
make a decision tonight to take a different course.
  I would plead with you. I will say it again and again and again, what 
we are seeing here are decisions about to be made that will be awfully 
difficult to undo. Your own numbers forewarn you. They tell the tale. 
Your on-budget deficit will not get below $300 billion. It is as high 
as $500 billion. You accumulate $5 trillion to $6 trillion in debt and 
add it to the national debt over the next 10 years.
  These are not my concoctions or fabrications. These are your own 
numbers that tell the tale of what is about to happen.
  Two years ago you took a blue sky estimate and bet the budget on it. 
It turned out wrong. Unfortunately, you are not chastened by that 
experience. But I am willing to say you made a mistake, an honest 
mistake. But now you cannot claim that this is an honest mistake, 
because OMB and CBO both told you there is no more surplus, so any tax 
cut you pass tonight, and you are going for another $1.2 trillion, will 
go straight to the bottom line. It will add to the deficit.
  Two years ago it was possibly negligence. Tonight, if you pass this 
budget resolution, it is willful, wanton and intentional. You are 
adding to the deficit by direct policy choice. This is your fiscal 
policy that leads us to the disastrous consequences that are set forth 
on page two of your tables and charts.
  $12 trillion in national debt is where we are headed if we adopt this 
resolution tonight. Your numbers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I invite all of my colleagues to recognize the extraordinary 
leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for 
presenting a budget to this House that is a statement of our national 
values. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier today we gathered in Statuary Hall to honor our 
men and women in uniform and their families. In doing so, we were 
reminded of our own mission, to build a future for our country worthy 
of their sacrifice, to build a future for their children and all 
children worthy of those children.
  To build a future worthy of them, we need a budget which is a 
statement of our national values. Instead, tonight we have a budget 
before us which is a national disgrace.
  We need a budget resolution which is a blueprint for investing in our 
children and for job creation. Instead, we have a road map to economic 
disaster. Instead of investing in our children, we are making them 
indebted. We are mortgaging their futures for a tax break which 
benefits those who need it least, the wealthiest in our country.
  It is no wonder that the Republicans want to bring this budget to the 
floor in the dark of night. It is 2 o'clock in the morning, just 11 
o'clock in California, so hopefully people there will hear about this 
budget, that the Republicans do not want the American people to know.
  They do not want them to know, for example, that while we honor our 
men and women in uniform, we are also tonight cutting their benefits by 
$6.2 billion. They do not want the American people to see their charts, 
which will show, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
indicated, that by the year 2013 they will double the national debt to 
$12 trillion.
  This is at a time where the Bush economic failed policies have taken 
us to consumer confidence being very low, retail sales moving at the 
lowest rate in a decade, and factory orders and manufacturing are down. 
The economic indicators are dismal. And the reaction of the 
Republicans? They offer more of their warmed-over stew: Tax cuts which 
benefit the wealthy.
  Under President Bush, our country has lost 2.5 million jobs, the 
worst record of job creation since the depression. Under President 
Clinton, 22 million jobs were created, largely because of the sound 
fiscal policy that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
referenced in the budget vote that only Democrats supported.
  This Republican plan will cause more job loss. Job loss for American 
workers to give tax breaks to America's wealthiest. It simply is not 
fair.
  Not only is the Republican budget not fair, it is fiscally 
irresponsible. I ask you, my colleagues, where have all the budget 
deficit hawks gone? I ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), are 
they an endangered species? It seems they are. The tax cuts in this 
budget, again, will double the national debt in the life of this budget 
to $12 trillion.
  It bears repetition. How old will your children be in 10 years? Do 
you want to weigh their futures down with huge debt?
  The interest on the debt alone in the life of this budget, the 
interest on the debt alone in the out years will exceed all 
discretionary domestic spending. We will pay more interest on the debt 
to pay for this reckless tax cut than we will spend on investing in 
education, than we will invest in protecting the environment, 
transportation, infrastructure, which grows our economy and protects 
our environment, and housing. The list goes on and on. Head Start, 
investments in our children, all of that investment will be exceeded by 
interest on the national debt. What a tragedy.
  Those big deficits will raise interest rates and have a negative 
impact on

[[Page 9288]]

our economy. The President's and the Republican's tax plan 
irresponsibly piles up debt and makes a bad economy worse. But do not 
take my word for it. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said 
recently that there is no question that as deficits go up, contrary to 
what has been said, it does affect long-term interest rates. It does 
have a negative impact on the economy. The Congressional Budget Office 
just last week said the overall macroeconomic effect of the proposals 
in the President's budget is not obvious.

                              {time}  0215

  The office went on to say that the downturn in investment that will 
result from this plan will be a drag on the economy.
  More than 400 economists, including 10 Nobel Laureates said, 
``Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long term budget outlook, 
adding to the Nation's projected chronic deficits.''
  Finally, the report by the Committee for Economic Development, a 
blue-ribbon organization of corporate CEOs stated, ``The budget 
deficits, the President's plan, would be akin to `arsenic poisoning' 
for the economy.'' A vote for this budget is a vote for arsenic 
poisoning for the economy.
  If that would not be enough, just yesterday, the IMF sharply rebuked 
the Bush and Republican budget proposal. And they said, ``Suppose for a 
moment we were talking about a developing country with a gaping trade 
deficit year after year as far as the eye can see, a budget spinning 
from black into red, open-ended security costs, and an exchange rate 
that has been inflated by capital inflows. With all of that, the IMF 
said, I think it is fair to say we would be pretty concerned if it were 
a developing nation.''
  ``The United States,'' it went on to say, ``isn't a developing 
country but, nonetheless, for the global economy, the Bush tax cut is 
poor policy and ill-timed. Whether we are talking about job creation 
for America's families or lifting up the global economy, this is a very 
bad idea.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican's 
reckless, irresponsible budget, which explodes the deficit, does not 
create jobs, and dishonors our commitment to our children. Do the right 
thing. Vote no, no, no on the arsenic poisoning of our economy, the 
Republican budget.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time controlled by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has expired.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to our very 
distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert).
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, it has been an incredible debate. I sat and 
listened to the debate on both of the rules and then on the substance 
here, the substance of this budget debate tonight. I guess maybe the 
same IMF to whom we provide the funds that they can go and provide 
capital throughout the world may be critical of us, I do not know. And 
possibly, the gloom and doom that we heard here tonight, if we set that 
as our philosophy and what this Congress can achieve and what this 
country would achieve, we probably would not be able to achieve very 
much.
  But I taught economics for a number of years, 16 years; and we taught 
about projections and how the economists put formulas together and how 
you can look out into the future. But not many of those projections can 
really look out into the future. I would say if you try to say what is 
going to happen in this country 10 years from now with the economy, it 
probably would go up and down and right to left three or four times 
before we ever get to that future.
  What is important is now. And I have heard a lot of rhetoric tonight. 
But I know what this budget does. It lays down the blueprint for the 
future of this country this year. This Congress, who is charged with 
doing the things that our people, the people who elect us, our 
constituents want us to do, they want us to stimulate this economy. 
They want us to see this economy getting going again. We lost $250 
billion in revenue last year, just in losses in capital gains. Now, we 
want to say the markets are not important, but the markets are 
important. We need to have stimulus. We need to have it going.
  But I will tell my colleagues, in my district, we do not have a lot 
of markets, we have a lot of small business people. They provide 80 
percent of the jobs in my district. That is fairly representative. 
Unless you are in the cities, that is fairly representative of around 
this country. Small business people say that they want to make an 
investment. They want to have some expensing. They want to have a job 
creation package that gets something done. And we can only do that, and 
we will have that debate on how that is put together, but we can only 
do that if we pass a budget to get the key in the door and open it up 
so that this Congress can do something.
  I have great respect for the gentleman from Minnesota. He talked 
about a road program. But I say to my colleagues, we can only get a 
highway bill and work on an infrastructure if we pass this budget.
  Tonight we debated an energy policy. This country needs an energy 
policy and how it gets put together, we will have that debate on it. 
But we will not have an energy policy unless we pass this budget.
  There are 13 appropriations bills. We passed a budget last year. Our 
friends in the Senate did not pass it, and we were talking about 
oranges and apples and we could not get the appropriation process done 
until February. We need to pass a budget; the Senate needs to pass a 
budget; we need to get the appropriation process done. We need to talk 
about education. We need to talk about health care. We cannot do it 
unless we pass this budget.
  So I say to my colleagues, it is late. We have had a lot of debate. 
It is time to get to work. I will make a prediction. We will have a lot 
of people vote against it, and we will have a few more vote for it. Let 
us get to it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
  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.
  This will be a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 211, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 141]

                               YEAS--216

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     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
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg

[[Page 9289]]


     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--211

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frost
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     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 (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 (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     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
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Boehner
     Combest
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     McCarthy (MO)
     Paul
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  0239

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________