[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13934-13949]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 REVISING THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 
             AS IT APPLIES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of June 
22, 2004, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 685) revising the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 as it applies 
in the House of Representatives, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of House Resolution 685 is as follows:

                              H. Res. 685

       Resolved, That the conference report on Senate Concurrent 
     Resolution 95, and the accompanying joint explanatory 
     statement, as made applicable to the House by section 2 of 
     House Resolution 649, shall have force and effect in the 
     House as though such conference report and accompanying 
     statement included the following modifications:
       (1) In section 101 (relating to recommended levels and 
     amounts for the budget year):
       (A) In paragraph (4) (relating to the deficit), the amount 
     of the deficit for fiscal year 2005 shall be reduced by 
     $4,675,000,000.
       (B) In paragraph (1) (relating to Federal revenues), the 
     recommended level of Federal revenues for fiscal year 2005 
     shall be increased by $12,285,000,000 and the amount by which 
     the aggregate level of Federal revenues should be changed 
     shall be increased by $12,285,000,000.
       (C) In paragraph (2) (relating to new budget authority), 
     the appropriate level of total new budget authority for 
     fiscal year 2005 shall be increased by $14,200,000,000.
       (D) In paragraph (3) (relating to budget outlays), the 
     appropriate level of total budget outlays for fiscal year 
     2005 shall be increased by $7,610,000,000.
       (2) In section 103 (relating to major functional 
     categories):
       (A) In paragraph (1) (relating to National Defense (050)), 
     the amount of new budget authority shall be increased by 
     $1,000,000,000

[[Page 13935]]

     and the amount of outlays shall be increased by $740,000,000, 
     to improve the quality of life and provide livable housing 
     for military personnel and their families.
       (B) In paragraph (5) (relating to Natural Resources and 
     Environment (300)), the amount of new budget authority shall 
     each be increased by $825,000,000 and the amount of outlays 
     shall be increased by $550,000,000, to provide clean water 
     and open spaces for future generations.
       (C) In paragraph (6) (relating to Agriculture (350)), the 
     amount of new budget authority shall be increased by 
     $380,000,000 and the amount of outlays shall be increased by 
     $330,000,000, to inspect and secure our Nation's food supply 
     and to improve economic opportunities, infrastructure, and 
     the quality of life for rural Americans.
       (D) In paragraph (10) (relating to Education, Training, 
     Employment, and Social Services (500)), the amount of new 
     budget authority shall be increased by $6,075,000,000 and the 
     amount of outlays shall be increased by $2,430,000,000, to 
     create opportunities for our children and young adults, and 
     to address the needs of low-income communities and assist the 
     long-term unemployed.
       (E) In paragraph (11) (relating to Health (550)), the 
     amount of new budget authority shall each be increased by 
     $1,370,000,000 and the amount of outlays shall be increased 
     by $530,000,000, to provide health care for children and 
     others in need, control infectious diseases, foster medical 
     research, and alleviate shortages of nurses and other health 
     professionals .
       (F) In paragraph (13) (relating to Income Security (600)), 
     the amounts of new budget authority shall each be increased 
     by $250,000,000 and the amount of outlays shall be increased 
     by $170,000,000, to help States provide energy assistance to 
     poor and alleviate the impact of refugees on State and local 
     communities.
       (G) In paragraph (15) (relating to Veterans Benefits and 
     Series (700)), the amounts of new budget authority shall each 
     be increased by $1,300,000,000(for a total of $2,500,000,000 
     above the President's request) and the amount of outlays 
     shall be increased by $1,210,000,000, to maintain quality 
     health care for veterans.
       (H) To improve our hometown response capabilities, 
     strengthen our borders and meet our security mandates, 
     amounts of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 
     2005 shall be further modified as follows:
       (i) In paragraph (9) (relating to community and regional 
     development (450)), increase new budget authority by 
     $1,200,000,000 and outlays by $240,000,000.
       (ii) In paragraph (16) (relating to Administration of 
     Justice (750)), increase new budget authority by $950,000,000 
     and outlays by $830,000,000.
       (iii) In paragraph (8) (relating to Transportation (400)), 
     increase new budget authority by $550,000,000 and outlays by 
     $460,000,000.
       (iv) In paragraph (11) (relating to Health (550)), increase 
     new budget authority by $300,000,000 and outlays by 
     $120,000,000.
       (3) On page 113 of House Report 108-498, the section 302(a) 
     allocation made to the Committee on Appropriations shall be 
     adjusted by modifying amounts in the table titled 
     ``Allocation Spending Authority to House Committees for 
     Budget Year 2005-Committees on Appropriations'' as follows:
       (A) By increasing the amount for ``Discretionary Action: 
     General Purpose: BA'' and the amount for ``Total 
     Discretionary Action BA:'' by $14,2000,000,000.
       (B) By increasing the amount for ``Discretionary Action: 
     General Purpose: OT'' and the amount for ``After Section 313 
     Adjustments of Discretionary OT:'' shall each be increased by 
     $7,610,000.
       (4) In section 211 (relating to reconciliation in the House 
     of Representatives), by inserting at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) Reduction in Tax Cuts for Taxpayers With Incomes 
     Above $1,000,000.--The Committee on Ways and Means shall also 
     include in the reconciliation bill reported pursuant to 
     subsection (a) changes in tax laws sufficient to increase 
     revenues by $18,900,000,000, to be achieved by reducing or 
     offsetting the tax reductions received during tax year 2005 
     by taxpayers with adjusted gross income above $1,000,000 for 
     taxpayers filing joint returns and comparable amounts for 
     taxpayers with other filing statuses as a result of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and 
     the Jobs and Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
     2003.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Tuesday June 22, 2004, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) each will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong and, frankly, enthusiastic opposition 
to this resolution. But I should add I rise in strong and enthusiastic 
support for its addition to the House calendar this week.
  The resolution before us, bravely introduced by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), crystallizes the debate in this country between 
Republicans and Democrats to a degree rarely witnessed in these days of 
homogenized, air conditioned, political discourse. And for this debate, 
I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin who, even in an election year, has 
the courage and confidence to know that vigorous partisan debates 
between conservatism and liberalism are all together good and healthy 
for American democracy.
  What this resolution before us comes down to is two questions: First, 
are small business taxes in America too high or too low? And, second, 
does the Federal Government spend too much money or too little?
  Now, if you pay attention, you will notice the proponents of this 
resolution will speak grandly about the needs for shared sacrifice and 
will assert that this resolution would only impact taxpayers earning 
more than $1 million in 2005. It is a clever debating trick, this 
impression that this tax increase will only get the idle rich to pay 
their fair share, but it is false. As proponents of this resolution no 
doubt know, 83 percent of the taxpayers fleeced by this resolution 
report business income.
  Small businesses, Mr. Speaker, sole proprietorships, subchapter S 
corporations, partnerships, family farms, we are not just talking about 
the cast of ``Friends'' here. Instead, we are talking about the people, 
the entrepreneurs, the risk-takers, the opportunity makers who are 
creating the jobs that are fueling what is now, beyond dispute, a full-
fledged economic recovery. Indeed, these are the exact same taxpayers 
for whom Democrats just last week proposed cutting taxes. I guess it is 
just another example of Democrats voting for something before they vote 
against it.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a direct punitive attack against the 
men and women of American small businesses, against the owners who have 
risked and invested to compete in the marketplace, against the managers 
who have generated the economic growth of the last 2 years, and against 
the new employees who have leapt at the opportunities those owners and 
managers have created.
  Hiking taxes on those small businesses, farmers, doctors, and 
families would immediately stifle the economic recovery that we are now 
enjoying, a recovery it must be noted, that is already producing 
government revenues greater than would have been generated without the 
Republican tax relief this resolution is trying to undo.
  How bad would it be? Estimates suggest damage in the neighborhood of 
100,000 lost jobs, $11 billion in lost GDP, and $30 billion in lost 
family income in just the first 5 years. The 12-digit tax increase that 
is being proposed, therefore, would only serve to increase government 
revenues by $19 billion over the next 5 years, and thereby add to the 
deficits he says he wants to cut, add to them, in fact, by more than 
$82 billion in the same time frame.
  And as if that is not enough, Mr. Speaker, this resolution, after 
gutting the economic expansion and failing to generate sufficient 
government revenue to meet our needs, would then go for the Triple 
Crown of fiscal suicide, massive spending increases.
  I know Democrats often complain that Republicans try to cast them as 
just tax-and-spend liberals. Well, Mr. Speaker, this resolution only 
does two things, tax and spend. I would love to call them tax-cutting, 
fiscally-sound supply-siders, Mr. Speaker, but if a party wants to tax 
like Mondale, spend like Dukakis, and stagnate the economy like Carter, 
and the worst thing we call them is liberal, frankly, I think they are 
getting off pretty easy.
  Mr. Speaker, the ideas at the very core of the proposal of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), indeed at the core of the Democrat 
Party today, is that the government will be making more decisions, and 
individuals families and small businesses should be making fewer; that 
Washington should have more money and more power, and the American 
people, they should have less. That is what the Democrats believe is 
what this resolution would write into law, and that is why it must 
fail.

[[Page 13936]]

  Now, while I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for 
bringing this, albeit bad idea, to the floor for debate, I must urge 
all Members to vote ``no'' and make sure American jobs, economic 
health, and fiscal security are protected from the bone-crushing 
futility of liberal economic incompetence.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, the remainder of which 
is to be controlled by my designee, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman 
Nussle).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, as the designee of the minority leader, I rise 
in support of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 45 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker I yield myself 9 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is bringing to the House floor a debate 
on how best to make this country stronger and more just. The 
distinguished gentleman from Texas has just said that this is about 
raising taxes. One of the worst problems that can happen to you in 
Washington D.C. is when you begin to believe your own baloney. That is 
not what this resolution is about.
  The situation is very simple: we have a war. That war by next year 
will have cost us $250 billion. And the question is, how are we going 
to pay for it? We have two choices. One is to charge the bill mostly to 
our kids by raising the deficit, which is what is happening, and along 
with that making every American pay through the nose with less security 
for our homeland on our borders, in our ports, in our air ports, less 
security for veterans who are not receiving adequate health care, less 
educational opportunity for middle-class families because of budget 
squeezes, less health coverage for hundreds of thousands of children 
all over this country, less help for workers who are out of work; or 
will we choose the other way, as this resolution seeks to do.
  Will we choose to ask the most well-off 200,000 people in this 
country, less than 1 percent of all taxpayers, will we ask them to make 
the supreme sacrifice? Those who make more than $1 million a year, will 
you ask them to make the sacrifice of limiting their tax cut to $24,000 
on average rather than the $120,000 average that they will otherwise 
get under the existing budget of this House? I think the answer is 
quite clear.
  I plead fully guilty to wanting to see the most privileged and 
blessed people in this society accept a somewhat smaller tax cut in 
order to provide greater opportunity for others in society to get the 
basic requirements on education, health care, veterans health care, and 
the rest.

                              {time}  1145

  Now, this resolution is very simple. It raises over $18 billion by 
limiting the average size tax cut for persons who make more than $1 
million a year to about $24,000 a year. That is what the average tax 
cuts will be for someone who makes between $500,000 a year and $1 
million. We are asking those that make $1 million to live by that same 
amount. That is hardly an outrageous sacrifice.
  We then use 25 percent of that money for deficit reduction. We use 
the remaining $14 billion to eliminate the real reductions in domestic 
appropriations that are contained in the President's budget. If this 
amendment is adopted, we will simply be adjusting education, health, 
veterans programs and all the rest by the amount that is equivalent to 
inflation plus population growth. That is all. We would get back to a 
standstill level on that score.
  We put $3 billion into homeland security. Why? Because the Hart-
Rudman Commission told us we have a need of $190 billion at the local 
level, and we have only met 15 percent of that need so far. We do it 
because only 13 percent of fire departments in this country are 
equipped to handle a full-blown hazardous material attack. We do it 
because only a tiny fraction of cargo in passenger planes is presently 
inspected for explosives. We do it because we have some 2,000 fewer 
people on the northern border protecting our border than the PATRIOT 
Act told us that we would have. We do it because only 20 of the most 
important 45 ports in America which ship goods into the United States 
have adequate inspection systems to make certain that there is not 
nuclear material or explosive material in ships that come to our 
shores.
  We then put $1.3 billion into veterans health care so that we can cut 
the claims backlog of 327,000 veterans so that we can shorten the 
waiting time of veterans at VA hospitals, so that we can strengthen 
critical mental health services for returning veterans. We add $1 
billion to military housing because more than 120,000 of military 
families in this country serve in lousy housing, and they deserve 
better.
  We put $5.7 billion into education to close the gap between what this 
Congress promised it would provide local schools and what it is 
actually giving them. We put a billion and a half dollars into Title I 
so that 500,000 more poor kids and disadvantaged kids can get better 
instruction in reading and math.
  We put $1.2 billion into special education so that local school 
districts will receive more help from the Federal Government to meet 
Federal mandates to educate every disabled child. We put $300 million 
in in order to help 400,000 more children receive adequate child care 
and after school care.
  We put $2 billion in so that we can increase Pell grants to help 
those who otherwise could not afford to go to college. We want to 
increase the maximum grant by $450. Pell grants today pay only for 35 
percent of the cost of instruction at a 4-year university. Twenty years 
ago they paid for 75 percent. Can we not do better than that?
  Then we use $200 million to provide additional employment and 
training opportunities for people who have lost their jobs. We also 
address a number of other matters. We fund a number of other programs 
that are high priority programs, as demonstrated by the letters from 
the minority side as well as the majority side of this House to our own 
committee, asking that our committee provide funding for these 
programs.
  So that is what we do, and I would ask support for this resolution, 
and I repeat the same thing that I said when I began. We have one 
choice. We can either pay for this war by shoving the bill to our kids 
and by cutting back on educational opportunities, cutting back on 
veterans health care, cutting back on decent housing for the military, 
squeezing dangerously our homeland security expenditures, or we can ask 
the most well-off, the most prosperous people in this country to share 
a little bit more of the load by limiting the size of their tax cut to 
$24,000 rather than the average $120,000 tax cut they would ordinarily 
get.
  I believe the majority of those people are patriotic enough to say, 
``Do it, we do not need that extra supersized tax cut as much as this 
country needs to have its fiber strengthened by providing the 
investments that I have just talked about.'' I would urge a ``yes'' 
vote for the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle) is the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute before I yield to 
the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. Speaker, I hear from Members on both sides of the aisle that this 
is really a waste of time today. It is kind of a silly exercise. We 
ought to be having appropriation debate on the floor. We have got 
appropriations bill that are waiting in line with no prospect of 
getting them done on time this year, and yet we have got to do this.
  I hear from some that this is really an exercise as a price to 
prevent obstructionism on the floor for consideration of appropriation 
bills, that if we do not debate that, somebody is going to obstruct the 
floor.
  Regardless, let me say a couple of things. There is a budget. The 
House has deemed the budget. We await consideration in the other body 
of the budget, and this is a nonbinding resolution that we are about to 
talk about for the next couple of hours here instead of talking about 
appropriation bills, but I guess we are going to go through this 
exercise.
  As the majority leader said, we are going to have some fun because we 
get

[[Page 13937]]

to point out our differences, but let us just face it. This is a 
nonbinding, somewhat silly exercise, but we are going to go through the 
process and talk about the differences.
  Mr. Speaker, in order to do that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means 
and a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for allowing me to 
speak this morning, and it is true, this is a non-binding exercise. On 
the other hand, it is a very important debate, and it is a 
philosophical difference.
  I appreciated the comments from my colleague from Wisconsin talking 
about the need to get the deficit down. I think what we have learned 
over the last couple of decades is the only way to get the deficit 
under control is to grow the economy and restrain spending. We learned 
it in the 1990s. We are relearning it now, and what is exciting to me 
is the fact that part of that, which is restraining spending, we are 
doing with regard to the budget and the budget that the House passed 
and based on the deeming resolution will keep our spending under 
control in the House this year. That is very important, keeping 
spending at about 4 percent, trying to keep it close to what the family 
budget is is extremely important.
  Second, we are growing the economy, and there is an incredible story 
out there. It is probably the most underreported story of the year. The 
only economic indicator that is not improving right now is what we are 
hearing from the other side of the aisle about the economy. Jobs are 
increasing, fastest growth in 20 years. The unemployment rate is now 
5.6 percent in this country, down from 6.3 percent. That makes it lower 
than the average unemployment in the vaunted 1990s, in the 1980s or the 
1970s. People are going back to work.
  Just last month, we created over 225,000 new jobs in this country. We 
have created over 1.4 million jobs in this country in the last 9 
months. People are going to work, and not only are jobs increasing but 
they are good jobs. Wages are going up. Wages are going up faster than 
they did in the 1990s. We are seeing actual take-home pay going up. We 
are seeing productivity high, inflation low, interest rates are low. We 
are seeing the economy that is the envy of the rest of the 
industrialized world.
  Part of the reason for that, I believe a big part of it, is that this 
Congress has taken the right steps in terms of fiscal policy, keeping 
spending under control and growing the economy by smart tax relief that 
provides incentives for growth. That is what the Bush tax cuts were all 
about. That is what is under attack today.
  If my colleagues are to vote for the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. 
Obey) amendment, my colleagues are showing that they have a 
philosophical difference with that. Instead, my colleagues believe that 
just as the economy has turned, just as jobs are coming back, just as 
we have seen real growth and real wages, that we ought to be repealing 
the very tax relief that has led to that. I do not get that.
  Here is a chart showing that today there are more Americans working 
than ever before. Employment is at a record high in May of 2004, 138.8 
million people. Here is what unemployment would be without the tax 
relief that we passed in the last 3 years. Again, 5.6 percent 
unemployment today. Without the tax relief, we believe it would be over 
7 percent. Now, what does that translate into? Over 2 million jobs. 
Over 2 million jobs.
  I just think it is crazy that at the point at which we are turning 
the corner, we are bringing back jobs, things are going so well, that 
again the rest of the world is looking up and saying now America is the 
engine of economic growth again, that the people back home who punch a 
time clock every day are seeing their wages going up, that we would 
want to jeopardize that.
  Increasing spending is, again, a philosophical divide. We can talk 
about whether we should be increasing spending within the allocation we 
have for homeland defense, intelligence and so on as we did yesterday 
on the floor of the House, but let me show my colleagues what would 
happen with the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment.
  He said it is an increase in spending of about $14.2 billion next 
year. Well, over a 10-year period, that is $150 billion. Here is the 
spending increase that is in the legislation that is before us today or 
in the resolution before us. Again, we are not going to get the deficit 
under control unless we restrain that spending. Adding another $150 
billion over 10 years is not the solution, $194 billion over 10 years. 
It is more than 150.
  Now, let us talk about the tax increase. The tax increase, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, is $18.9 billion in fiscal 
year 2005, and it is, but we have to take that over 10 years, too. Let 
us look at the 10-year number there. We are talking about individual 
income tax increases by $269 billion, over $250 billion over the next 
10 years.
  I know, again, we have a philosophical difference on who should be 
paying. Let me just make the point that if those tax returns that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) talked about, that he wants to 
affect, over 75 percent of those tax returns have business income. Why 
is that? Because 90 percent of small businesses in this country are not 
C corporations. They are so-called pass-through entities. What does 
that mean? They pay taxes at the individual level.
  So part of what my colleagues are doing, there is no free lunch 
around here. When they are saying they are going to go after the rich, 
who are they going after? They are going after a lot of businesses. 
These are the entrepreneurial businesses, the small businesses that are 
pass-through entities, so-called subchapter S companies, sole 
proprietors, LLC companies, partnerships that are creating the jobs out 
there.
  Look, in our districts, it is not the large companies that are 
creating these net new jobs. It is these companies. It is the 
entrepreneurial companies that are taking a risk, that are pass-through 
entities. Ninety percent of small businesses pay taxes at the 
individual level. We are hitting them hard if we do this.
  Again, let us not take this risk. Let us go back to what we know 
works. Let us restrain our spending. Let us grow this economy. Let us 
not go back to taxing and spending. That does not work. It is going to 
hurt our economy. It is going to hurt the very workers the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said he would like to help.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for giving us an opportunity to define who we are 
as a Congress. There are some who truly believe that we are going 
through a political period of polarization and disdain for each other 
and that this is corrupting the system. That may be so, but I think we 
might look at it in a more optimistic way is that we are making it 
abundantly clear to the American people, especially those who decide 
not to participate politically, that they will never, never be able to 
say this year that there is no difference between Republicans and 
Democrats, and I think that this is so important.
  We do not need lectures on Economics 101. All we want to know is are 
you working, do you have health care and do you think you are getting a 
fair shake from the government, and not as a Democrat, but also as an 
American, I would also add, and do you think our kids in the Armed 
Forces and our Reservists and the National Guard are getting a fair 
shake? Are we doing all that we can to protect them?

                              {time}  1200

  I do not really think people are going to be looking at our label, 
Democrats and Republicans; but they want to know what we stand for. If 
some of you believe that it is more important to excite the economy by 
finding the

[[Page 13938]]

wealthiest people in America, that God has already blessed and given 
them large incomes, that by exciting them that you are helping the guy 
looking for a job, do not explain it to us. And do not get annoyed with 
us if we do not understand it.
  Explain it to the people out there listening to us each and every 
day. Ask them whether or not the Republican majority has made their 
life any easier. Ask them why over half of the budget is appropriated 
for things that do not concern education and health care and improving 
the quality of life. Ask them whether or not they are prepared, given 
the opportunity, to pay for it.
  I really, truly believe, from the bottom of my political heart, that 
most Americans are willing to say, if you can make this great country 
of ours better educated, if you can make them healthier, if you can 
make them more productive, then this is what I do not mind spending my 
dollars for.
  If you believe that obligation is not a national obligation, but 
should be one that should be picked up by local and State governments 
and charitable organizations, even as the IRS steps up the 
investigations of not-for-profit organizations, then, for God's sake, 
between now and November do not change your minds. Stick to your guns. 
Provide the tax cuts for the rich, and let those people who are not as 
fortunate fend for themselves. If they cannot do it, let the mayors do 
it. If they cannot do it, let the government do it. And if they cannot 
do it, vote with your feet and forget about them.
  We have to vote for the bottom line, as you say, and that is profits. 
So stick with your guns, and we will be here to publicize your position 
every chance we get. And that is why we appreciate the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). He is not saying tax and spend, he is saying 
invest and give Americans an opportunity to have the revenues to do it.
  For those of us who have grandchildren, we wonder what we can say, if 
we live long enough and they ask us, well, granddad, what were you 
doing when they sold away our country? What were you doing when this 
debt increased to such an extent that you knew that they were leaving 
it for me to pay? Well, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
given us a chance to say what we would do is to vote against those 
injustices.
  It is wrong. It borders on being corrupt. And the people understand 
what this body is all about. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr. Obey.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the Committee on the 
Budget to continue the debate on the Democrat increase-taxes-and-
spending proposal.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was moved by this 
last speech. I really was. It was beautiful rhetoric and impressive 
rhetoric. But what I have learned here since I have been in D.C. is 
there are some Members of the Democratic Party who just will not let 
the facts confuse the issue.
  Let us look at some of those facts. You see, there is a huge 
difference, I agree with the gentleman from New York who has just 
spoken, there is a huge difference between the two parties; and these 
are the facts. The big difference is that our friends in the minority 
party will find every opportunity to raise the taxes of every living 
American. No, no, let me correct myself. Not only every living 
American, but they will even try to raise taxes of Americans who have 
died, at every single opportunity, including a nonbinding resolution 
that will do absolutely nothing, by the way, if it were to pass. But 
they just cannot help it. They have to try to raise taxes on every 
single hardworking American family and every single hardworking 
American business and every single small business, which are the ones 
that create the jobs in this country.
  This resolution would raise taxes by almost $19 billion, with a B, 
billion dollars in just 2005. It would increase spending by $14.2 
billion next year. And according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
this resolution, again which is nonbinding, would be equivalent to a 
tax increase of $4.62 on those families and those small businesses in 
this country. And, again, that would cause possibly the loss of 130,000 
jobs.
  They keep saying, well, some of these people can afford that tax 
increase. But how about those 130,000 people who would lose their jobs 
if this were to happen? Can they afford more taxation? Can they afford 
this kind of resolution? The answer is no.
  But, you see, they are consistent. Democrats are consistent. They are 
consistent because they offered three amendments to the Republican 
budget that would have raised taxes by over $100 billion. They offered 
alternatives to major legislation just last year that would have added 
close to $1 trillion to the deficit. And yet their rhetoric is 
beautiful. Actually, it is very nice. Mine cannot compare with that.
  This is right off the page of Senator John Kerry: raise taxes, 
increase spending, decrease the family budget in order to grow the 
Federal budget, in order to hire more bureaucracy, more bureaucrats up 
here.
  American families and American small businesses do not need more tax 
employees. American families do not need more bureaucrats taking more 
money out of their hard-earned pockets to send to D.C. It is their 
money, not the government's money.
  What they need is for us to continue growing this economy. And the 
way to do it, and it has been proven, is cutting taxes, cutting taxes 
like we have done. That is why the economy is doing well. We do not 
need tax increases on every American. What we need is to, again, 
continue to have sound fiscal policy.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me simply say, 
Mr. Speaker, that this is no less binding than is the budget resolution 
passed by the Republican majority.
  Let me also say that we have heard a lot of concern about small 
business. I would like to see how many small businesses in each of our 
districts have profits of $1 million per owner to qualify under this 
bill.
  Thirdly, we are not raising taxes; we are asking people who make $1 
million a year or more to limit themselves to a $24,000, on average, 
tax cut, which is still 25 times as much as the average person in this 
country making $50,000 a year will get.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his exceptional leadership in this House on behalf of 
America's working families. He is a champion for middle-class families 
in our country, and once again that is reflected in the initiative that 
he has put forth today. Democrats are united behind the gentleman and 
his efforts.
  As we all know, the budget should be a blueprint for meeting our 
obligations and moving forward as a country. But the Republican budget 
is a blueprint for disaster. Today, thanks to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we have an opportunity to have a real impact on 
the budget. We have a chance to correct some of the imbalance in the 
Republicans' distorted priorities.
  This vote matters. Congress will choose between giving tax cuts to 
people making over $1 million a year or making critical investments in 
homeland security, education, our veterans, health care, and the 
environment.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know, and it has been said over and over again on 
this floor, that our budget should be a statement of our national 
values. What is important to us as a country should be reflected in 
that budget. So I ask my colleagues, is it a statement of your values 
to give a tax cut, an additional tax cut to people making over $1 
million per year and leaving children behind because they are not 
receiving the proper education? Would you rather give a tax cut to 
people making over $1 million a year or would you rather improve 
education by adding $1.5 billion for disadvantaged schools, putting us 
on a path for full funding of the No Child Left Behind?
  If the Republican budgets had prevailed over a 10-year period, nearly 
$20 billion would have been spent on education, and they can see this. 
It is

[[Page 13939]]

below the line for every year except fiscal year 2002, and it is just 
slightly above the line. Ask any economist, and certainly Bob Rubin 
would attest to this, educating the American people is the best 
investment that we can make, certainly from a humanitarian standpoint; 
but from a practical budgetary and fiscal standpoint nothing brings 
more money into the Treasury than educating the American people.
  Early childhood, K through 12, higher education, post-grad, and life-
time learning brings more money into the Federal Treasury than any tax 
cut or anything that you can name. And yet, and yet, the Republicans 
reject that, despite what it does for the growth of our country, what 
it does to bring money into the Treasury, and, instead, want to give 
tax cuts to people making over $1 million a year.
  Is it a statement of my colleagues' values to give a tax cut to 
people making over $1 million a year instead of improving veterans 
health care and shortening waiting times at VA health care facilities? 
The Paralyzed Veterans of America call this bill vital. They call this 
bill vital because, instead of those tax cuts, it truly honors our 
veterans. We talk a lot about veterans on this floor and how we honor 
their service to our country, but we dishonor them if we say they do 
not get the proper priority they should have; that we do not value them 
in our budget.
  Is it a statement of Republican values that in this time of 
uncertainty in terms of our homeland security to give a tax cut to 
people making over $1 million a year instead of improving our homeland 
security; adding $3 billion to give our first responders the equipment 
and training they need to increase security at our ports and at our 
airports? Most of the wealthy people I know who make over $1 million a 
year say they do not need the tax cut, and they would rather have 
investments in America's children and in America's security. They know 
that it comes to them at a cost to our society.
  This bill is also fiscally responsible. What the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has proposed would reduce the deficit by almost $5 
billion. That would be about 25 percent of this money that comes from 
these people making over $1 million a year. He has investments in 
education, in veterans, in homeland security, in the environment, and a 
major investment in deficit reduction. What happened to the Republican 
deficit hawks? Have you become an endangered species?
  Let us be clear. This bill does not raise taxes. The previous 
gentleman from Florida spoke about this raising taxes on every living 
being. If everybody he knows makes over $1 million a year, maybe that 
is the circle he travels in; maybe that is his awareness of society. 
But it simply ain't so. And the gentleman is right, the speaker 
previous to him said ``there ain't no free lunch.'' There certainly is 
not. We should be paying as we go, and we will be addressing that in 
the substitute of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) later.
  But let us be clear that this does not raise taxes. It does make 
major investments in our education, health care, homeland security, and 
environment. It does reduce the deficit by nearly $5 billion, but it 
does not raise taxes. It halts a future tax cut, for those, again I 
keep repeating, making over, making over $1 million a year, and 
stopping the fiscally irresponsible giveaway of $19 billion next year 
to those who need it least.
  And let us be equally clear, we would not spend one penny more than 
the Republicans would. We just spend it differently. They have passed 
an ill-conceived Medicare bill that will cost taxpayers $534 billion 
and which gives $149 billion in windfall profits to big drug companies. 
They have chosen to ignore a bipartisan approach to pay as you go.
  Today, we see the stark difference between the two parties: Democrats 
are focused on the aspirations and the needs of all Americans; 
Republicans are solely focused on tax cuts for the wealthy few, many of 
whom, as I have said, realize that these tax cuts for them take a 
tremendous toll on society in general.

                              {time}  1215

  The gentleman from Wisconsin's bill is a fiscally sound bill that 
invests in the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to read the last 
line of the bill. The minority leader may want to read page 5 of the 
resolution she just defended. It is not a tax increase? My goodness. 
What does ``changes in tax laws sufficient to increase revenues by $18 
billion'' mean? I heard one time if it walks like a duck, it looks like 
a duck and quacks like a duck, it might be a duck. This is a tax 
increase.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, to talk further 
about this Democrat tax increase resolution.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I know that this resolution is 
offered in good faith, but this is just a terrible idea for America. It 
offers something for nothing, like we often do here in Washington, D.C. 
We say, let's tax a few people behind the tree over there, the super 
wealthy, and then let's give everyone else in America something good. 
It almost sounds like a lot of things, too good to be true, and it is.
  Let us start with the tax increase. They will tell you it is for the 
super wealthy, but eight out of the 10 people that they propose to tax 
more are just small businesspeople. Eighty-three percent of those in 
this category are small businesspeople who do not file as big 
corporations but rather as individuals like you and me. And so we are 
not talking about taxing Bill Gates. We are talking about taxing Bill's 
dairy farm, Bill's print shop and Bill's grocery stores. Make no 
mistake, when we tax them more, we will send 130,000 Americans out of 
their jobs, out of work because we chose to tax these small businesses 
at a time we are just recovering our economy as a Nation.
  And then it promises spending increases on good things, no question 
about it. But here is the catch. The tax increase is for 2 years. The 
spending goes on forever. At the end of 10 years, not only have we cost 
130,000 people their jobs, we have added $130 billion to the national 
debt. 130,000 jobs we lose, $130 billion we add to this debt. This is a 
terrible idea.
  I will finish with this. What we ought to be doing is cutting 
wasteful spending up here. In Washington, every program duplicates five 
others. We have got 340 economic development programs stretched across 
13 different agencies. We waste your money just horribly. If we want to 
increase spending on certain areas, I am all for it as long as we cut 
out the horrible waste we have. The bottom line is Washington has all 
the money it needs, it just does not have all the money it wants, and 
it needs to learn the difference.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we have sat here for 3 or 4 years and 
watched tax cuts erode away the surplus and then, after the surplus was 
gone, watched tax cuts add to the budget deficit. We have asked 
ourselves where are we headed? What is the point of all of this? And we 
have suspected, long suspected, that the next step was to take us to 
the stage we are in now where we will hear increasingly, we just don't 
have the funds to meet our obligations for veterans' health care, we 
don't have the funds to fund education at the level we promised when we 
passed the Leave No Child Behind bill, and the pitch will be that all 
of this has been forced upon us by some outside events and we can't 
help it, we simply have to conform the budget to fiscal reality.
  Well, we do have a choice and this bill today shows us in one clear 
illustration what that choice is. We have a choice. It is not 
inevitable that we cut veterans' health care. It is not inevitable that 
we do not fully fund education or health care generally. We have a 
choice. We can move around, just a little bit, $18.9 billion and do a 
world of good. Where does the money come from? From those making over 
$1 million. How much do we take? $18.9

[[Page 13940]]

billion and still leave them a tax cut. And where does it go? $4.7 
billion goes to deficit reduction. $14.2 billion goes to various 
selected needs.
  Let me give my colleagues just a few examples. Veterans' health care. 
Our own Veterans' Committee tells us we have funded veterans' health 
care at $1.3 billion below what is needed to meet our obligations. We 
have promises to keep and surely this is one we could keep, should 
keep, to our veterans. Selected pay increases for junior officers and 
senior NCOs. We did not fund it this year. We could fund it with this 
bill.
  Education. We passed a bill called Leave No Child Behind. We set a 
high level because we were imposing mandates on school districts across 
this country. We promised them money. We are $8.8 billion below the 
level that we set for ourselves in passing Leave No Child Behind.
  Homeland security. There are a host of unmet needs here. We are 
skating on thin ice. One is port security, funded at all of $124 
million in this year's bill. That is twice what the administration 
requested. The Coast Guard tells us they need $5.8 billion over the 
next 10 years. We are not on that track. We can at least provide more 
for needs like that, glaring needs in that particular area.
  After 9/11, one of the questions quickly raised was what about the 
fire next time? What if this had been a radiological attack or a 
biological attack? A number of Members went down to CDC, the Centers 
for Disease Control, in Atlanta. They were really troubled when they 
saw those facilities and security at that facility in particular. So 
what do we do with CDC this year? The budget request from the President 
called for a $410 million cut in CDC. This amount of money would allow 
us to plus it up.
  Allied health care professions. We all know there are acute shortages 
of nurses coming up. The President's request this year cuts allied 
health care professions by 64 percent. Will this money be used better? 
Will it do more good for more people if we take some away from those 
whose AGI, adjusted gross income, is above $1 million and put it to 
these pressing needs? You better believe it will. That is why we should 
vote for this bill.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, to continue the debate on this small 
business job-killing bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, since coming to Congress, I have heard a number of bad 
ideas, but I cannot think of one worse than raising taxes on small 
businesses in America, the job-creating machine in America.
  Let me just give you one example of why this is such a bad idea. 
Recently I was in Jacksonville, Texas touring a plant, Jacksonville 
Industries, a zinc and aluminum die cast business. Because of 
competitive pressures, they were considering laying off two of the 22 
workers that they had. But thanks to President Bush's economic growth 
program that we passed in this House, that tax relief for that small 
business enabled them to buy a new piece of machinery, I could not tell 
you what its name is, I could not tell you what it does, it is big, it 
makes a lot of noise, but most importantly, it makes them more 
efficient. And instead of having to lay off two people, they hired 
three new workers in just one plant in one small town in Texas, thanks 
to tax relief. That is five people who could have been on welfare, five 
people that could have been on unemployment. But instead it is five 
people with good, productive, tax-paying jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a choice today. We can choose to continue the 
historic economic growth we have seen over the past year or we can turn 
back the clock to recession and stagnant growth. We can choose to keep 
creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs or we can send Americans 
back to the unemployment line. We can choose to limit the growth of 
government or we can expand the Federal bureaucracy by another $150 
billion over the next decade.
  Mr. Speaker, thanks to tax relief that Congress has passed, our 
economy is growing at the fastest rate in two decades. Thanks to tax 
relief, we have created 1.4 million new jobs since last August. Thanks 
to tax relief, the stock market is up, incomes are on the rise and the 
national rate of homeownership is at an all-time high.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to choose tax relief. I urge 
all of my colleagues to choose economic growth. I urge all of my 
colleagues to choose jobs for American families and soundly defeat the 
Obey amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that 
we are forced to debate these very important topics within a nonbinding 
resolution, but the public ought to know that we are forced to debate 
these topics within a nonbinding resolution because of the corruption 
of the process by the Republican leadership in this House where we 
cannot debate these same items in the budget resolution.
  Yesterday we saw that they would not face up to the debt limit 
extension, so they had to hide it in the defense bill to be added 
someday in the dark of night in some conference committee in the 
future. We have seen the corruption of legitimate debate and the 
exchange of ideas on the floor of the House. I do not know if the 
Republicans would really want the American public to know that over the 
last 10 years, the House Republicans have voted for $20 billion less in 
education spending than was finally appropriated by the Congress of the 
United States. I do not know if the Republicans really want in real 
debate the public to know that the House Republicans have decided that 
we will never have full funding of special education, special education 
that is very expensive for the school districts of this Nation, where 
school boards and superintendents and parents and children have come 
and lobbied this Congress and we have a bipartisan coalition to vote 
for full funding of special education.
  But the Republicans will never get there. They have turned back the 
promises, they have turned back their votes of the past, they have 
decided they will add $1 billion a year to special education, and that 
means we will never get to the promise we made to this country of full 
funding. The gentleman from Wisconsin adds another $1.2 billion to that 
and in 6 years we would achieve the goal of full funding and take the 
pressure off those school districts to increase taxes at the lower 
level, but more importantly to be able to provide them the resources 
necessary for the education of those children with special needs.
  I do not think the Republicans want to have a real debate about their 
position on the Pell grants that they have frozen over the last 3 years 
after the President of the United States promised that these young 
people would have access to a Pell grant to help them achieve their 
college education. But the Republicans do not really want to have a 
real up or down vote on increasing the Pell grants. Once again, they 
have promised to do that, they simply do not want to get caught voting 
against that promise, so they have us in a nonbinding resolution.
  I do not think the Republicans want to get in a real vote on whether 
or not they are going to fully fund No Child Left Behind, where 
currently they are $29 billion behind the curve that they have promised 
America's schoolchildren, their parents, their families that they would 
provide because we have provided the most significant reforms in the 
last 35 years in Federal education policy.
  What does that mean? That means that if they do not adopt this 
resolution, and it is nonbinding, that means that 500,000 low-income 
children will not get the academic assistance that they need. That 
means that over 350,000 children will not have access to afterschool 
care that they need where they get tutored and they get mentored and 
they get academic help. That means that thousands of teachers will not 
complete the process by which they become highly qualified teachers in 
the

[[Page 13941]]

classrooms of our children. So another year goes by and thousands of 
more teachers enter the classroom without the professional development, 
without the credentials, without the certifications necessary to 
provide a first-class education to America's children.
  The Republicans have so corrupted the process that they can continue 
to make the promises to the public that they are for full funding of No 
Child Left Behind, they are for increasing the Pell grants to $5,100, 
they are for full funding of special education, but they do not have to 
deliver on them because they hide their budget in a conference 
committee. It was due out here weeks, months ago, it has not been 
passed, so they deemed a budget, not a budget that they voted on, they 
just deemed a budget. What incredible dishonesty in the face of the 
needs of America's families and children to acquire a good education to 
participate to the full extent of their potential in the American 
society and in the American economy. What corruption. What dishonesty 
by the Republican leadership.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a member of the Committee on the Budget, to 
continue the debate on this more-money-solves-all-problems proposal.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. This amendment, and furthermore any move 
that would raise taxes on American workers and businesses, is going to 
reverse the positive effects of the progrowth economic initiatives that 
this House passed just last year. Those initiatives were the largest 
tax relief since Ronald Reagan. The U.S. economy is strong, it is 
growing stronger, and it is proving that the Republicans' clear, 
comprehensive progrowth agenda is working for America.
  This Republican-led Congress understands that the best way to expand 
the economy and further great jobs is simply to leave more money in the 
hands of the people who earned it.
  Now, if the Democrats do not believe this, all they have to do is 
look at the negative effects that States such as California, the 
Democrats there have spent with the tax-and-spend policies, it has had 
on that State.
  California's tax and regulatory structure crippled that State. In 1 
month alone, California lost 21,000 jobs, more than any other State, 
more than the rest of the country combined. When you compare that to 
other States, the once invincible California economy was suffering from 
competitiveness crisis.
  Simply this, when taxes are raised, businesses leave, and jobs and 
wages are lost, negatively affecting the economy.
  This week in my home State of New Jersey, the Democratic Governor, 
Jim McGreevey, passed what he is calling the millionaire's tax, a tax 
increase on New Jersey taxpayers. It is set to increase the marginal 
tax rate by 41 percent, the fifth highest now in the country. It is 
really a Robin Hood-like grab Democratic Governor Jim McGreevey has 
taken from these taxpayers, money that the Federal tax relief measures 
that we passed before restored to them, that were put in place by this 
Republican Congress to spur the economy along.
  The Democratic Governor, Jim McGreevey justified his scheme of this 
millionaire's tax by saying, ``I will only tax that which the rich have 
gotten back from the Bush tax cuts.''
  Well, now the gentleman from Wisconsin wants to eliminate that Bush 
tax cut altogether. So I ask, when is enough enough? The Democrats 
really are speaking from both sides of this argument, and they have 
shown their true colors: if given an inch, they will take a mile.
  The small business owners of New Jersey, they are the ones who have 
spurred on the economy, and it was due to the tax cuts initiative of 
last year. And now under this initiative in our own State, they would 
lose the State tax cuts, and now by the initiatives on the other side 
of the aisle, they would lose the Federal tax cuts as well.
  So I say to the Democrats in my home State of New Jersey in Trenton, 
and the Democrats in Washington as well, I say stop killing the 
Nation's economic recovery. No more taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Governor of New Jersey's, Mr. McGreevey, 
move to take away this tax savings will wreak havoc on the positive 
economic upswing that is occurring right now in my home State of New 
Jersey. As a matter of fact, the Center For Policy Research in New 
Jersey has shown that the tax cuts that we are talking about now will 
result in 28,000 jobs lost in the next 5 years, proving that this tax 
hike will only hurt the people of New Jersey.
  Today, many of the new jobs that are created in New Jersey are by 
employers that were fleeing to the other States' higher tax levels. 
Businesses will flee now out of New Jersey, just as businesses fled out 
of California.
  With this amendment on the other side of the aisle, we will now be 
raising taxes across the entire country, and the question will be, 
where are we telling businesses to flee to, then?
  I would ask the sponsor of this amendment and Governor McGreevey, the 
Democrats in New Jersey as well, to take a look at the crippling 
effects that their policies have had in New Jersey and California and 
to say let us have some common sense to leave our economic recovery 
alone and let the people keep their own money. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) has 23\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Nussle) has 21\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans in this House believe if you 
say something enough, long enough, somebody somewhere will believe it. 
I have heard on this floor somebody refer to the famous Russell Long, 
who said, ``Don't tax me. Don't tax thee. Tax the man behind the 
tree.'' They did so, of course, properly with derision, and the public 
who hears that must hear it with derision as well; but my friends, the 
Republicans have found out how to do that; and during the 8 years of 
the Reagan administration, they plunged this Nation deeper and deeper 
and deeper into debt, and during the 4 years of the Bush One 
administration, they plunged this country deeper, deeper, deeper into 
debt.
  And then in 1993 those Republicans who were here came on the floor 
and said those Democrats are proposing a program that will plunge us 
deeper into debt, cause large unemployment and destroy our economy. You 
have heard me say it before on the floor. They were 180 degrees wrong, 
absolutely, incontrovertibly wrong. And they are wrong today.
  The Republicans have said charge overseas. Spend more money overseas, 
$25 billion in a bill just yesterday. Did we pay for it? We did not. 
Who was the man behind the tree who will pay for it? My three daughters 
and my three grandchildren. They are the man behind the tree. They will 
pay this bill, because you continue to spend. You spend more than was 
spent before. You create more debt than was created before. In fact, in 
the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, we never once raised 
the debt. Not once. Because we had a responsible economic policy. But 
you will raise it $2.1 trillion in 4 years. That is a pretty stark 
difference, my friends.
  What the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says is we need to 
invest in America. If we are going to invest overseas, if we need to 
help the people in Iraq, that is fine, but do not leave behind 
America's children. Do not leave behind America's veterans. Do not 
leave behind America's infrastructure while we help those overseas.
  That is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is saying. And 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is saying, yes, we have a 
problem. Terrorism needs to be confronted, needs to be defeated, and 
America needs to be kept safe. So what does the

[[Page 13942]]

gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) say?
  Let us follow what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the 
Republican chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the Democratic ranking member, 
said we ought to do 2 years ago: invest further funds in the safety of 
our people here in America. Invest in homeland security.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard it and the public has heard it. Eighty-
three percent of the small businesses are going to be affected by that. 
That is baloney, baloney. That is the politest word I can think to use 
at this present period of time. The IRS says there are 3.8 percent of 
small businesses who claim more than $1 million in taxable income. That 
is almost as much of a mistake as you made on your Medicare bill and 
almost as much of a mistake as this administration made in terms of 
telling us how much their Medicare bill was going to cost. They only 
missed by 25 percent.
  And we heard about waste, fraud, and abuse, as if somebody else is in 
charge of Washington. For 40 months, 40 months, the Republicans have 
had the Presidency, the Senate, and the House; and there is still waste 
in Washington.
  What is wrong with your administration? We have a larger 
infrastructure than we had when you took office. You talk about smaller 
government. It was smaller under President Clinton.
  Mr. Speaker, vote for the Obey amendment. Vote for honesty and 
investment in America and Americans.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, to continue our debate on this Democrat 
increased-taxes bill, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Burns).
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  I have heard a lot of baloney, and there appears to be a good bit in 
the House. I have great respect for the minority whip, but there is 
beef in the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) job-cutting proposal.
  This is about jobs. This is about taxes. This is about spending. And 
I have only been here a short time, but this has got to be one of the 
worst ideas I have ever seen come from our colleagues across the aisle. 
It is bad for the Nation. It is bad for working America. We are going 
to cut the heart out of a recovering economy. We are going to destroy 
the momentum that we are enjoying all because the Democrats want to 
tax, and they want to spend. They want to tax, and they want to spend. 
And they want to do it at America's expense. At America's expense.
  Just last week, just last week, they were complaining about our not 
doing enough to create jobs. We created 1.1 million jobs just this 
year. They want to take away that momentum.
  It really is about the people who create jobs, the small businesses, 
the farmers in the 12th District of Georgia. It is about people who 
create jobs; 200,000 hardworking taxpayers, of which 80-plus percent 
are small businesses, will see their taxes go up. And that is the 
engine that creates the jobs for America. These are precisely the small 
businesses and farms that we need to protect and to encourage by 
providing them the deserved tax relief that they currently enjoy.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to finish this business pretty quickly because 
there is no telling whose jobs or whose money the Democrats are going 
to go after next.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker has not listened to 
the debate. We are going to ask people making over $1 million a year to 
make a small sacrifice during this time of war. That is who is going to 
pay for investment into America's future.
  In Congress, our values are expressed more by our budget priorities 
than by our speeches. And the Obey resolution reflects American values 
far better than this year's Republican budget, and this is why: the 
Republican budget continues the same old status quo, a failed 
philosophy that has led to unprecedented deficits. That philosophy was 
expressed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader, on 
March 12, 2003: ``Nothing is more important in the face of war than 
cutting taxes.'' A direct quote.
  That bizarre philosophy flies in the face of the basic American value 
of shared sacrifice during time of war. Can anyone imagine Franklin 
Roosevelt having stood here on December 8 of 1941 saying to the 
American people it is time to cut taxes, nothing is more important than 
that after Pearl Harbor? In World War II, fortunately, President 
Roosevelt did something different. He inspired all Americans to make 
sacrifices to support the war and our servicemen and -women, and it was 
the right thing to do.
  Unfortunately, as we now face the war on terrorism, the Republican 
budget reflects the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. DeLay) flawed 
philosophy that tax cuts should trump sacrifice and services for 
veterans and military families during time of war. What is the result 
of this ideologically driven budget? First, the consequence is that 
this year's deficit is the largest deficit in American history. With 
massive unpaid-for tax cuts, we are borrowing billions of dollars to 
pay for the Iraqi war, and that means that young soldiers from my 
district at Fort Hood fighting in that war today will have to come home 
and help pay for it after the war is over. Billionaires living safely 
here at home, getting multimillion-dollar-a-year tax cuts while young 
soldiers have to fight for the war in Iraq and then pay for it. Where 
is the fairness in that?
  To add insult to injury, the Republican budget pays for its tax cuts 
to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans by reducing veterans health 
care and freezing military housing improvement programs. If the 
American people find out about this dirty little secret in the 
Republican budget, they will be outraged, as they should be. And as a 
representative of nearly 40,000 soldiers who fought in Iraq over the 
last 18 months, I am certainly outraged.
  These are the facts: fact number one, the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith), Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
has said it would take $2.5 billion of increased VA health care 
spending just to keep from having to reduce veterans health care 
services because of health care inflation.

                              {time}  1245

  Fact number two: The Republican budget underfunds present services 
for VA health care by $1.3 billion. That means real cuts to millions of 
real veterans.
  Fact number three: several weeks ago, on the same day the House 
Republican leadership voted to give Members of Congress a tax cut, they 
pushed through a Defense authorization bill that will freeze the most 
important military housing improvement program in American history. 
Over 24,000 military families will not receive the new housing they 
deserve. No new housing for thousands of military families, while we 
get thousands in tax cuts, we Members of Congress. Where is the 
fairness in that? Where is the American value in that?
  There is a better choice, a clear choice, a choice that reflects the 
true values of the American people. The Obey resolution will prevent 
cuts in veterans health care and will prevent cuts in military housing. 
It is the right thing to do for America.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, to continue our debate on this tax-increase, 
job-killing bill, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put in my comments on this very good debate 
here, and it is a debate that is good, because it shows clashing two 
philosophies: one of higher taxes for more spending, versus lower taxes 
for more private sector growth, more jobs through the private sector.
  The proposal in front of us today is for a $270 billion tax increase 
over a 10-year period of time. So taxes would go up in a fashion like 
that, $270 billion; and the justification that we are hearing is so 
that we can spend more money.

[[Page 13943]]

  But I want to say this as a fiscal conservative: if you look at what 
we have been doing since 1994, we have in fact been spending a lot of 
money, and, ironically, in the very areas where we are being accused of 
not spending enough.
  But this is a Committee on the Budget chart, and it shows since 1994 
how much our spending has in fact increased. We are being accused of 
not spending enough on education; but here is one education program 
alone, title I. Since 1999, it has gone up this much, nearly, I am 
going to guess, about $6 billion. The exact math is available, but I 
just want to show the chart to illustrate.
  Pell grant funding, an important scholarship program, has increased 
in a similar fashion of about maybe $5 billion. The gentleman from Iowa 
can correct me if my quick, on-the-spot-math is wrong.
  No Child Left Behind. The irony about No Child Left Behind, an 
important Bush initiative on education, is we hear a lot of critics 
say, you are not funding it. Yet look at No Child Left Behind. Growth 
in education under President Bush has increased 40 percent.
  Special education, something that has a lot of bipartisan support, 
since 1999 we have gone from about $4 billion in spending to nearly $12 
billion in spending. So where is the cut in education? There is not one 
to show.
  Veterans programs. Often the liberals hide behind veterans programs 
and say, you are not spending enough. But here, again, since 1985 to 
2004, budget authority has gone from $27 billion to $60 billion. The 
gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Chairman Smith) have worked hard to champion that and done it 
on a good bipartisan basis. Spending per veteran during that period of 
time has gone from $950 to $2,400. Veterans spending has in fact 
increased.
  Another criticism we are getting is spending to combat terrorism has 
not increased. Here we are, from 2001, spending about $20 billion, to 
$87 billion today. So where are these cuts that we are suffering from? 
There are not any cuts.
  Now, as I said, I am a fiscal conservative. I wish these charts did 
go in a different direction in many cases. I wish that I could honestly 
be accused of cutting a lot of government programs. Unfortunately, we 
failed in that. But the will of the House, the will of the Senate takes 
a long time for the process to go through. I am just saying that the 
spending cuts are not there.
  But who do we propose to get the income from? We keep hearing about 
these big, bad, horrible people called millionaires in American society 
today. Let us examine who these millionaires are.
  These millionaires, for the most part, are small business owners; 
people who are farmers, people who own bicycle shops, people who are 
contractors. They have $1 million in revenue, and therefore they are 
taxed in the 35 percent bracket. How many? Is that just a few? Hardly. 
It is 73 percent of them.
  What about in the group that earns from $200,000 to $499,000? 68 
percent. What about in the big bad group that grosses from $500,000 to 
$1 million? 76 percent. And $1 million in revenue and above, 82 percent 
of them are small business owners.
  So what are we talking about doing? What we are talking about doing 
is beating up on the small employers out there, the folks who are 
turning this economy around.
  Here we are looking at the job charts, what is happening in the 
economy. Right now we have nearly 140 million Americans working, the 
highest level in history. Yet we want to reverse that trend by killing 
the goose that is laying the golden egg, and that is the small business 
owner.
  If you are for jobs, the correct vote on this is ``no.'' If you want 
to kill economic prosperity, if you want to kill the small business 
employer, if you want to kill jobs, vote ``yes,'' because that is 
exactly what will happen.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, despite the fiction we have just heard, you have to make 
$1 million a year profit in order to be covered by this. To suggest 
small businessmen are hurt by that is laughable.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the ranking member for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority started this country on a ride a few years 
ago, and the signposts along the way are fairly clear. We have a 
record-high deficit, hundreds of billions of dollars; we have a record 
trade deficit; we have a 50-year high on mortgage foreclosures; we have 
3 years in a row of historic highs in personal bankruptcies. And yet, 
they suggest that we should operate on the same forecast that they were 
operating on when they started out on this trip, when they said we had 
10 years of surpluses coming our way, trillions of dollars; and we can 
afford to give the wealthiest among us a tax break.
  So they did that, and they do not see the other signposts: $200 
billion for a war in Iraq. They do not look at the other signposts 
along the road that show that we have lost millions of jobs.
  Now we have replaced 1 million-or-so of those jobs that we lost, and 
they want to say that we have created new jobs. They are a long way off 
from creating a new job that is a net new job, but they do not want to 
talk about that. They do not want to look at these signposts. They want 
to keep going down this road.
  What the Obey resolution suggests is we should take a different 
course. We should say to millionaire taxpayers that rather than take 
$124,000 in tax cuts, take $24,000. Let us pay our way for this war. 
Let us pay our way in terms of investing in the needed resources of our 
country.
  Albert Einstein said a long time ago that we have to have a different 
level of thinking to solve problems than the level of the thinking that 
we used when we created these problems.
  This program that the Republican majority has taken us toward as a 
country is leading us to fiscal bankruptcy. This majority has to 
understand that we have to take into account that we live in a 
different forecast now, with dark clouds on the horizon. We are at war. 
We should pay the costs now, and we should do it by saying a little 
less tax cut for those who are doing very, very well. That is what the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) does. I ask that this resolution be 
supported.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, to continue the debate on the Democrat tax-
increase proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat a couple things said in the past. If a 
small business makes $1 million, what does that mean? That means they 
are making money and hiring people. Two-thirds of our jobs in America 
come from small businesses. Two-thirds of all those who file in the top 
bracket are small businesses. In this new rate structure being 
proposed, this new tax increase, 75 percent of those people are small 
business people.
  Why would we want to tax the recovery of this economy at this time? 
What we accomplished in the last tax bill was finally lowering the tax 
rate on small businesses down to a level large corporations pay.
  Remember, Mr. Speaker, that before the July tax cuts, we were 
charging small business owners higher tax rates than we charged the 
largest corporations in America, like Exxon or IBM or General Motors. 
What this bill will do is do that again. It will increase taxes on 
small businesses and make small businesses pay higher tax rates than 
the largest corporations in America. Why would we want to reintroduce 
that injustice back into the Tax Code?
  We want to keep low tax rates on small businesses. That is who are 
creating jobs right now. Two-thirds of our

[[Page 13944]]

jobs today come from small businesses. This big tax increase on small 
businesses is not the way to go. We want small businesses making money. 
This is a tax on their income that they reinvest in their businesses.
  More importantly, this proposal adds $130 billion to our deficit over 
the next 10 years. It is fiscally irresponsible, taxing small business 
and spending more money. Adding to the deficits is what has given us 
this hole we are trying to dig out of in the first place.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, again, despite all of the misinformation that we have 
just heard, the IRS has told us that fewer than six-tenths of 1 percent 
of all returns with small business income have incomes of more than $1 
million. To suggest that this is even laying a glove on small business 
is a colossal red herring fiction.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) to respond.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of all those who file 
their taxes in the top bracket are people who report small business 
income, subchapter S corporations, limited liability corporations. 
Seventy-five percent of all those in this new tax bracket covered in 
this bill are those who report small business income.
  Small businesses do not pay taxes as corporations; they pay taxes as 
people. So we are not talking about tax increases on millionaires who 
are hanging out on yachts. We are talking about tax increases on people 
who are running businesses. They have 25 employees, they have 50 
employees, they have 100 employees, they have two employees, they have 
five employees.
  The point is, these small businesses, the engine of economic growth, 
the job creator of this economy, pay their taxes on the individual 
rate; and these are the people whose taxes are being increased under 
this proposal.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The gentleman refers to one-third of the top bracket. This does not 
touch everybody in the top bracket. The top bracket is $319,000 or 
more. We do not touch anybody with an income of less than one million 
bucks, less than one million bucks. That is not $300,000. Do not try to 
bamboozle people.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, we do not want to ``bamboozle,'' so I would 
yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, my friend and I, we get along 
very well personally when the mikes are not on; but I just have to say, 
that is not what this proposal says. This proposal says ``reduction in 
tax cuts for taxpayers with incomes above $1 million,'' period, end of 
story. The committee figures out how to do the rest of it.
  The point is, if businesses are becoming successful, that means they 
are going to start hiring people again. We do not want to raise their 
taxes
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the point of this all is, this is a tax 
increase. They are admitting it. There were so many Members who came to 
the floor and said, oh, no, no, no, we are not really increasing taxes. 
But what the colloquy between the two gentleman from Wisconsin proves 
is, once and for all, this is a tax increase.
  So if one wants to come to the floor today in the middle of an 
economic recovery and vote to increase taxes on small business, knock 
yourself out.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Line 22 and line 23 of page 6: The only taxpayers that are affected 
are ``taxpayers with adjusted gross income above $1 million.'' Period.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution offered by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to address priorities that have 
been severely underfunded by the House leadership's budget. I will 
mention only two or three of those, depending upon the time, but ones 
which effect millions of people.
  The Obey resolution provides $500 million for the National Park 
Service, which has been forced to absorb huge unbudgeted items over the 
last 3 years, including natural disaster damage, competitive sourcing 
contracts, and antiterrorism requirements. The Park Service has been 
forced to cut personnel, reduce services, defer maintenance, and ignore 
resource protection. One million visitors every day to our national 
parks this summer are going to be the victims of that neglect.
  Second, for education, this resolution adds $1.5 billion in 
additional Title I funds toward keeping this Congress's promise to 
Leave No Child Behind. No Child Left Behind challenged America's public 
schools to achieve higher standards and promised Federal dollars to 
help. But Congress has failed to provide schools full funding. The 
budget resolution for 2005 falls far below the $20.5 billion for Title 
I grants authorized by No Child Left Behind. The $1.5 billion added by 
the Obey resolution does not meet the whole promise, but without it, we 
will surely leave more and more children behind.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be good for 
history's sake to look at the last time that we dramatically increased 
taxes. We did that; when President Clinton came into office, we had the 
largest tax increase in history, and what was the effect of that on 
spending? During those years of the Clinton administration, we 
increased spending by 33 percent. During those periods, we increased 
the debt limit three times. So we have dramatically demonstrated that 
if we have more money, we are going to have more spending.
  I would suggest that there has to be some limit, and the overall bill 
gives us some intestinal fortitude, gives us some guts to resist the 
temptation to promise more and spend more has to be incorporated.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we can have the kind of votes and support to give 
us that discipline in this kind of budget reorganization.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Obey 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel like this is Alice in Wonderland. In 3 years, at 
the end of the Clinton administration, we had the largest surpluses in 
American history, and now, after 3 years under Republican rule, both 
the presidency and the House and the Senate, we have the largest 
deficits in American history.
  The Republicans used to call themselves fiscal conservatives. They 
cannot say that anymore. What has happened to the heart and soul of the 
Republican Party? We are having an orgy of tax cuts and we are leaving 
a legacy of debt to our children and grandchildren. It is 
unconscionable.
  Every day people come into my office and need more money for 
desperately needed programs. Veterans are pleading; they need more 
money for health care. The Republicans say no. People who have kids in 
schools want more money for No Child Left Behind in education. 
Republicans say no. In health care, we want a prescription drug bill, 
seniors tell me, that will really help seniors; not the phony one 
passed by the House. Republicans say no.
  So what Democrats are trying to say is that in programs that we 
desperately need, homeland security, first responders for police and 
firemen, putting homeland security dollars for trains and things where 
people know we need it, Republicans say no. And what is the 
Republicans' proposal? To give great tax breaks to millionaires and 
billionaires.
  The Obey proposal would simply say, if your adjusted income is $1 
million or more, you ought to give back a little bit of those tax 
breaks to help us with priorities in this country. The borrow-and-spend 
Republicans say no.
  The Obey proposal ought to be voted on. It ought to set priorities 
for our

[[Page 13945]]

country. Let us help our veterans. Let us help our kids. Let us help 
our seniors. Support the Obey proposal.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Respectfully, because I know the Speaker is from New York, let me 
yield myself 30 seconds and say I think a lot of that money we borrowed 
was sent up to New York. So when the gentleman is talking about what 
happened and Alice in Wonderland, let me just remind the gentleman that 
we sent a lot of that to New York. We had a terrorist attack. I know 
the gentleman knows that, and he voted for it then, and he did not say 
a word about it then. He said send the money. We need it. Do whatever 
it takes. Now he comes to the floor and he says, gee, I guess we 
borrowed too much money.
  Well, maybe we did, but the gentleman should have complained about it 
then.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
Iowa, for yielding me this time.
  I just think we ought to remember how we got in the situation we are 
in today, because we have seen charts and heard rhetoric that said the 
reason Federal revenues are down is because of Republican economic 
policy, but they have overlooked some of the hard and cold facts; and 
facts are stubborn things, some hard and cold facts that have happened 
over the last few years.
  For example, in 1999 we had a huge tech bust. The NASDAQ dropped more 
than half. It was not based on Republican policy. Then we had the 
recession that happened while President Clinton was still in office. It 
began in November of 2000, before President Bush was sworn in. And then 
on September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked our homeland and drove our 
economy down the tubes. The result was a 14 percent reduction in 
federal revenue. That reduction was not based on Republican policy at 
all; it was based on those series of events, the most tragic being the 
attack by terrorists on September 11.
  Well, what did the Republicans do to respond to that? We lowered 
taxes across the board for everyone, including the top 1 percent, the 
same percentage as everybody else, and the result was that today we 
have more Americans working than ever before in the history of our 
Nation. And the income of our workers is up higher than it has ever 
been in the history of our Nation. Homeownership is up, higher than 
ever before in the history of our Nation, as well as minority ownership 
of homes.
  We have had tremendous success because of Republican policy. But now 
we are trying to regress and tax those people who are creating the 
jobs. Mr. Speaker, 83 percent of the people in the top 1 percent of 
income earners in America are small business owners. They are farmers, 
they are people who own little machine shops, they are the people down 
at the local drugstore, or retailers.
  If we start taxing them in addition, up to near 40 percent of their 
income, less money will be available to create jobs.
  So there are two different philosophies we are hearing today. We have 
the dark and stormy liberalism that says raise taxes, and we have the 
bright and sunny conservatism that says lower taxes and let Americans 
become successful, because the result is more Americans working, 
greater jobs, stronger economy.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, for putting this very important motion forward.
  The Republicans cannot win this argument in the world of reality, so 
they have created a world of illusion that they are speaking to today.
  One of their illusions is that this is a tax increase bill. If you 
make less than $1 million a year of taxable income, this bill has 
absolutely nothing to do with you. The second illusion is that this 
bill will have a devastating and crushing effect on those who do file 
more than $1 million a year of adjusted gross income.
  Well, first of all, we have heard the statistic over and over and 
over again about small businesses. Fewer than 4 percent of the small 
businesses in this country file more than $1 million a year of adjusted 
gross income. And for those that do, under this proposal, their taxes 
would be $24,000 a year lower than they were 3 years ago. This makes 
their tax cut smaller than it was; their taxes would still be $24,000 a 
year lower than they were 3 years ago.
  And the third illusion is that we are disrupting this masterful 
economic strategy that is bringing this boon to our country.
  Well, this masterful economic strategy has lost 1.9 million more jobs 
than it has created. The rate for people making more than $1 million a 
year that is in this bill is the strategy that resulted in 23 million 
more jobs being created than were lost. So much for the world of 
illusion.
  In the world of reality, the Republicans cannot explain this vote, if 
they vote no, because when they go to the VFW hall and they are asked 
by the members of the VFW why they are not doing something about 
reducing the waiting lines at the VA health clinics, they will not be 
able to explain why they did not vote for more money for VA health 
care. When they sit down with the members of the Board of Education in 
their towns and the board members say, why do you not fully fund 
special education, and they all sign letters that say they support that 
and they introduce bills that say they support that, they will not be 
able to explain why they did not vote for a $1 billion-plus increase in 
special education that would lower property taxes and go right to the 
local schools.
  When they visit with the environmental community in their hometowns, 
and they hear, why can you not do more to clean up the Superfund sites 
that are in our area, and why can you not do more to bring 
environmental progress to our area, they will not be able to explain 
why they voted against a bill that significantly increases investments 
in environmental protection.
  This bill is filled with all of the promises that everyone here 
makes: more veterans' health care, more money for education. When they 
visit the fire company and police department in their hometown and they 
are asked why those guys and women still do not have biochem suits and 
training to deal with the terrorist attack, they will not be able to 
explain why they voted against this bill, which adds money for those 
firefighters and first responders.
  So because they will not be able to explain this vote at the fire 
station or the Board of Education or the VFW hall or the local Sierra 
Club, they have created a world of illusion: It is a tax increase. No, 
it is not. It will crush small businesses. No, it will not. It will 
interfere with the masterful management of the U.S. economy by this 
administration, which has lost nearly 2 million more jobs than it has 
created.
  Mr. Speaker, if the argument against this bill is that it disrupts 
the Bush economic policy, I say that is the finest argument I could 
hear to vote yes on this bill. If there ever was a policy that needed 
disruption, this is the one.
  Vote yes for the things that you say that you support when you are 
back home.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the vice chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  My favorite Member of Congress is the gentleman who just spoke, 
Robert Andrews of New Jersey. I consider him the most articulate Member 
of Congress; but I think as articulate as he was on this issue, he is 
missing the whole point.
  This is a bill that spends more money and increases taxes. And we 
believe with all our hearts and souls that when we added 58 percent 
more on veterans' spending in the last 4 years, that is a spending 
increase for a very good cause

[[Page 13946]]

and has enabled us to improve veterans' services every year, we are 
continuing to include more and more for our veterans. Only in 
Washington when you spend so much more money do people call it a cut.
  On No Child Left Behind, we have increased spending by 40 percent in 
the last 4 years. It is not funded at the highest level the authorizers 
have allowed but we are spending far more than we have ever spent.
  We are at war. We are at war not just in Iraq, but against terrorism 
around the world. And I think a 9 percent increase in Defense and 
Homeland Security is a huge increase in spending. The huge increases in 
spending that we have in our entitlements shows a tremendous amount of 
concern that our government has for the people of our country.
  But when President Bush inherited a recession and then inherited 
September 11, and then inherited a breakdown in the structure of the 
business community with Enron and WorldCom, it is remarkable how well 
our economy has grown, with new jobs being created and new revenue 
coming into our coffers, and an incredible increase in productivity.

                              {time}  1315

  We believe in large measure growth in our economy is the result of 
economic policy centered around tax cuts.
  And so for me I am happy to have this debate, happy to go into the 
election this fall and emphasize we are against tax increases and ever 
increasing spending.
  When we had the budget meeting and the budget votes, our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle said we voted against veterans, we voted 
against this, we voted against that. They failed to say in each one of 
those amendments was a tax increase. We voted against the amendments 
because there were tax increases at a time when we think it is unwise. 
So we have a difference of opinion that we will obviously fight out 
this fall.
  So I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for providing this 
opportunity to distinguish the differences between the two parties. We 
do not want a tax increase. We do not want a lot more government 
spending.
  Let me end by saying this: 5 percent of the American people pay 55 
percent of the taxes. 50 percent of the American people pay 96 percent 
of the taxes. When we passed our tax cuts, we gave the tax cuts to the 
people who pay taxes. That is the reality of what we did.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, this bill is very clear. With the war on 
terror going on, what this bill says is that every American has their 
skin in the game. I have seen my Marine units going. And on the war on 
terror, not all of America is fighting. So when it comes down to 
investing in the war on terror, when it comes to making sure that we 
have access to higher education, health care so our veterans are taken 
care of, every American has their skin in the game to make sure the 
21st century is the American century.
  And I have seen many, many a wealthy American. I would stop and ask 
our colleagues to appeal to their patriotism, not just their 
selfishness. There are patriotic wealthy Americans who are ready to 
make sure America is safe and secure in the 21st century.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment is pure and simple about shared 
sacrifice, as the gentleman from Illinois has just indicated. What we 
are asking is that those lucky people in this country who make more 
than $1 million a year, that includes the one-half of 1 percent of 
small businessmen who make profits of over $1 million a year, we are 
asking them to accept a scaled-back tax cut so that they only get, on 
average, $24,000 in tax cuts. That is 24 times as large as someone will 
get if they make $50,000 a year.
  And, instead, we are saying please, for the sake of the country, take 
a little bit smaller tax cut so that we have some room in the budget to 
strengthen protection on our borders, to strengthen protection in our 
ports, to strengthen protection at our airports, to provide stronger 
opportunities for education, to provide more civilized health care for 
our veterans, to provide better housing for our military personnel, to 
provide a little better shot at protecting the environment, to help 
local communities so that they do not have to lay off hundreds of 
thousands of kids from health care programs like SCHIP and Badger Care 
in my own State. This is an effort to see to it that we can enrich the 
many and enrich the few at the same time.
  Trickle-down economics is what we have heard from our friends on the 
other side of the aisle today. They say if you just give enough to the 
people at the top, eventually some will trickle down to people at the 
bottom.
  My old friend Harvey Dueholm in the legislature used to describe it 
this way. He said trickle-down economics is the theory that if you just 
feed the horses enough oats, eventually some of it will filter down to 
the sparrows. Think about it. And vote ``yes.'' It is the fair, it is 
the right, it is the just thing to do.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the difference between Republicans and 
Democrats. It all comes down to who is doing the feeding of the oats. 
The government does not feed oats. That is not where the economic 
advantage of this country comes from. We do not pass out money to 
people here and say here is government money, we printed it, you get to 
have it. They get it from working. They get it from farming. They get 
it from taking risk. They get it from unlocking their door in the 
morning and letting in the public to their flower shop, to their shoe 
store, to their bank, to whatever it might be, unlocking that door and 
letting the energy and the economic engine of this country work.
  That is what we want to continue: working. We do not want this to 
kill jobs. Just at the moment when we are increasing jobs, look what we 
have done. Yes, there was a downturn. In the aftermath of 9/11 and in 
the aftermath of the dot-com bubble busting and the aftermath of the 
Clinton recession, there is no question, look right here; that is what 
that is, that little downturn. But look how it is going back up.
  And it is going up because the engine of America is working. It is 
not going up because of the chart on spending. When we increase 
spending in Washington, that does not drive the economy. That does not 
do anything except it spends money in Washington. What drives the 
economy are people in Wisconsin and Iowa taking a risk, building a 
business, employing people so that when they balance their checkbook 
around their kitchen table and they meet their obligations and pay for 
their kids' college and pay for health care and turn on the lights and 
pay for groceries, they can do it. It is not because, with all due 
respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we send them a 
check. Because that does not do anything.
  The check they want to make is a paycheck, not a government check. 
Every single person in America wants a paycheck. And that is what we 
have done. We have created paychecks. Look what the spending side of 
this does. They are saying we are not spending enough in Washington. 
Look at all of this increase. Look at all of the debt that they are 
complaining about. And on top of all of that, they say, no, the problem 
is we are still not spending enough money in Washington. And the thing 
they misconnect is that that money in Washington came from somebody, a 
taxpayer.
  Money does not start in Washington. Money starts in Iowa, in 
Wisconsin, across the country, in people's pockets, in small 
businesses. That is where it starts. And they want to take more of it, 
they want to kill those jobs, so that they can hand out more money, so 
that they in Washington can have the power. We do not want that to 
happen. We want the power to be around the kitchen tables of Iowa and 
Wisconsin. That is why we have opposed their big tax increases.

[[Page 13947]]

  As far as the spending, the taxes, that is obvious those increases 
are ridiculous. But the increases in spending, one can always say we 
want to hand out more money in order to demonstrate our compassion. And 
we have told them about the increases in education, the increases in 
veterans, the increases in health care, the increases for the 
environment, for all sorts of programs, and to make sure our country 
was protected. But on top of that, they say, you know what, I think we 
can even be more compassionate. We are going to hand out money and tell 
people we care.
  Well, quite honestly, I think it is time for to us start looking 
around for the waste. I believe that, instead of this debate on the 
floor today, what we should have done is had an appropriation bill come 
up. That is what we should have done. We should have started going 
through all the accounts and look for ways where the Federal Government 
is not spending that money as wisely as the people back home in Iowa 
and Wisconsin.
  We do not want to kill jobs; we do not need to increase spending. We 
do not need a resolution like the Democrat proposal on the floor today 
to tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend 
more and more in Washington. This needs to be done around the kitchen 
tables of Iowa, not the committee tables in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope Members vote against this ill conceived proposal.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank David Obey for offering 
this budget amendment, even if I fundamentally disagree with it. I have 
great respect for Mr. Obey, and I think he makes a valuable 
contribution to this House. And the Obey amendment is important, 
because it clarifies the distinctions between the two parties.
  As then candidate Ronald Reagan said to then President Jimmy Carter, 
``There they go again.'' The Obey amendment is a return to the 
traditional Democratic philosophy of tax and spend. If the Democrats 
were to create their own ``Contract with America'', the first two 
promises would be tax more and spend more. This budget amendment raises 
taxes by $18 billion in the first year, more than $250 billion in ten 
years. These tax increases are aimed at the job creators, the 
entrepreneurs, the small business owners. This amendment raises taxes 
on these job creators by about five percent. Increasing costs on a 
business by five percent is the difference between success and failure.
  If you increase costs on a small business by five percent, the small 
business owner has two choices. They can pass the cost increase onto 
consumers by raising prices. Or they can cut costs elsewhere. Because 
of stiff price competition from our competitors, the usual result is 
cutting costs elsewhere. That means a small business owner won't hire 
that extra worker.
  The Heritage Foundation says that a tax cut of this size will kill 
130,000 jobs in the next year. Increasing taxes now, just as the 
economy is ready to take off, is a cruel joke to play on Americans who 
need a job.
  Remember several years ago, when Democrats decided to increase taxes 
on luxury items like yachts. The Democrats thought they were being 
clever. But those middle class boat builders who lost their jobs 
because of that tax increase didn't think it was so funny. We ended up 
repealing the so-called luxury tax a year later.
  The second part of the Obey plan is also familiar: Increase 
government spending. Clearly, today's Democrats reject President 
Clinton's promise that the era of big government is over. We need to 
control spending in the Federal government. We don't need another 
spending spree. But by spending over $200 billion over ten years on a 
variety of politically attractive programs, the Obey amendment is just 
that: Another spending spree.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget 
amendment. Let's support smaller and smarter government. Let's support 
more job creation in this country. And let's reject this tax and spend 
scheme once and for all.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, and I want to express my 
appreciation to the gentleman for recognizing the great need in the 
veterans' health care system.
  I also want to state my opposition to some of the other measures we 
are considering today that would cap discretionary spending and 
reinstate pay-as-you-go measures through fiscal year 2009. These rules 
would have significant impacts on VA health care and many other 
domestic discretionary and mandatory programs.
  This February, Veterans Affairs Chairman Chris Smith and I 
recommended that the budget committee add $2.5 billion to the 
President's request for VA discretionary programs. We agreed, on a 
bipartisan basis, that this was the bare minimum necessary to continue 
to operate current services in fiscal year 2005.
  Mr. Obey's amendment adds the other half of the recommended funding 
that the House neglected to provide in passing its budget resolution. 
This will ensure that veterans can rely upon the system created to 
serve their special needs rather than being subjected to increased 
copayments, new enrollment fees and the waiting lists for care that 
could reappear and worsen in the absence of adequate funding.
  As dangerous as the budget proposed by the Administration for fiscal 
year 2005 is, the budget planned for future years is even more perilous 
for our veterans' programs. Ranking Member Spratt and I have produced a 
report to be released tomorrow that will identify some of the scenarios 
that could come from the planning guidance issued by the Office of 
Management and Budget.
  The planning guidance leaked to the press recently indicates that VA 
should find $910 million to cut from its fiscal year 2006 budget 
request for VA discretionary programs. This guidance was offered in the 
absence of discretionary caps and pay-as-you-go enforcement for 
mandatory funding. We could expect even worse if there were an overall 
ceiling applied to discretionary spending. In the Spending Control 
bill, only the tax cuts that benefit our wealthiest Americans are 
protected.
  We could do things far differently and far more fairly. If we must 
impose discipline upon ourselves, we should subject tax cuts to the 
same enforcement we would impose upon our veterans' benefits. As it now 
stands, tax cuts are driving vital funding and policy decisions for all 
of our veterans' programs. Tax cuts have taken so much out of the pie 
that all of our appropriated programs are fighting to keep what they've 
got rather than growing to fulfill new or evolving needs. There is no 
question that we must provide adequate resources to our fighting men 
and women in Iraq and Afghanistan for as long as we choose to continue 
these engagements. Prioritizing tax cuts in a time of war is flat out 
irresponsible.
  If we trust ourselves to impose self-discipline on decisions 
regarding tax cuts, why shouldn't we trust ourselves to have the same 
restraint in regard to high-priority programs? Why subject Congress to 
the double standard H.R. 3973 would impose?
  I hope Congress will wake up and realize that we do have limited 
resources and our funding choices must reflect our priorities. Those 
who value tax cuts from the wealthiest Americans more than social 
programs for veterans, for the environment, for our less fortunate 
Americans, for children and education, and for our seniors will make 
that clear by supporting Mr. Nussle's bill.
  Mr. Obey's resolution on Democratic priorities is a much better 
reflection of my values than the standing House-passed budget 
resolution. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 
2005 budget authored by Ranking Member Obey. I also want to thank the 
House Leadership as well as Chairmen Nussle and Young for allowing an 
up-or-down vote on an alternative budget. Until today, the budget 
process had operated under severe restraints--doing a disservice to 
this chamber and an injustice to the millions of Americans whose lives 
are improved by Federal government programs.
  My colleagues, federally-funded programs are critical. We provide the 
children of working parents with safe places to go after school. We 
recruit young professionals into nursing--a profession with a looming 
shortage that will affect all Americans who seek health services. We 
help law enforcement officers and public safety officials obtain needed 
equipment and training. We prevent our most vulnerable from having to 
choose between food and heat. We make owning a home--the pinnacle of 
the American dream--a reality. We help put kids through college.
  These activities benefit every fabric, every member of our society. 
Yet, many of these services will be cut short if we continue down the 
current path.
  It is important my colleagues remember that on the heels of this 
year's limited budget will come an even skimpier spending proposal in 
fiscal year 2006. America was put on notice in May, when the 
Administration circulated a memorandum indicating that the future 
spending cuts outlined in this year's budget will be implemented. What 
does that mean? --huge reductions in spending on health, education, and 
homeland security.

[[Page 13948]]

  Whether you vote for the Obey budget today or not, the sad reality is 
the forecast for our future is troubling. That is, unless we change 
course.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Obey budget. Too many of the 
initiatives and programs that benefit our constituents and our 
communities are at stake.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 685 is an alternative 
to the Republican leadership's failed economic policies. Unbalanced 
priorities, escalating spending, and three rounds of tax cuts have led 
to the highest budget deficits in history while shortchanging our 
children, seniors, and our troops and veterans. Before ``borrowing'' 
from the Social Security trust fund, this year's deficit is expected to 
total $638 billion.
  This resolution is a small but significant step to reverse the 
unfortunate trend of the last three years. By limiting tax reductions 
for those earning over $1 million annually, we can help fund promises 
this Congress made to the American public, to make our country safer, 
improve our schools, and provide real healthcare benefits to those who 
need it the most.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the choices we make define us, our 
priorities, and our values. The Obey resolution before the House today 
gives members of Congress the clearest choice possible. Our vote on 
this measure today will speak volumes about our priorities and values 
and what we stand for as representatives in the People's House.
  Four years ago, the President came before Congress and proposed a 
sweeping tax cut. Citing a large projected surplus in the budget over 
ten years, the President said that he was here to claim a refund on 
behalf of the American people. I voted against the President's proposal 
for two key reasons: The lion's share of tax relief in the President's 
plan goes to the very richest households in America, instead of the 
middle-income families I represent. Indeed, millionaires receive annual 
tax cuts averaging over $120,000, while middle-income families receive 
annual tax cuts averaging somewhere between $317 and $1,186 a year.
  The other reason I voted against the President's tax plan is because 
it relied on improbable blue-sky economic forecasts that left no margin 
for error. As we have seen, the economy has not performed as well as 
the Administration predicted. The tax plan has left this nation with 
insufficient resources to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well 
as the improvements needed in this country's homeland security in the 
aftermath of 9-11. This has led the Majority Party in Congress to 
short-change fundamental commitments we have made in the areas of 
education, veterans health care, medical research, public health, 
homeland security, and protecting our environment.
  The resolution before the House presents us with a clear choice. We 
can stay on the path we are on and continue to underfund the most basic 
needs of our children, veterans and communities, or we can make a small 
adjustment in the tax code and ask the very richest among us--those 
with incomes exceeding $1 million a year--to accept a smaller tax cut 
next year than they currently receive. The taxpayers affected by this 
resolution would still receive tax cuts that average thousands of 
dollars--even tens of thousands of dollars--more than most other 
American families receive.
  This small adjustment in revenue would generate $18.9 billion. This 
resolution would redirect a quarter of this, $4.7 billion, to deficit 
reduction. The balance would go to fulfill basic needs that this 
Congress and the Bush Administration have underfunded. It would invest 
$3 billion to bolster homeland security and ensure that first 
responders have the equipment and training they need. The resolution 
would also provide $1.3 billion to keep our promise to fund veterans' 
health care. It also provides $5.7 billion for key education programs 
and help our community schools meet the requirements Congress imposed 
on them in the No Child Left Behind Act. In addition, it provides 
additional funds for Pell Grants to help families afford college. It 
would also invest in critically needed medical research at the National 
Institutes of Health and help control infectious diseases and expand 
immunizations.
  Mr. Speaker, the answer to every problem is not to throw money at it. 
But we must acknowledge that some problems won't be addressed without 
spending money. As I said, this Congress faces a defining choice today. 
Do we stay the course we set four years ago, or do we act to address 
the most pressing needs confronting this country? For me, this is not a 
difficult choice. Vote for the Obey resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of Tuesday, June 22, 2004, the resolution is considered read for 
amendment and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NUSSLE. 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.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX this 15-minute vote on adopting House 
Resolution 685 will be followed by 5-minute votes, as ordered, on 
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 692; adopting House 
Resolution 692; and suspending the rules and adopting House Resolution 
676.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184, 
nays 230, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 301]

                               YEAS--184

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--230

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline

[[Page 13949]]


     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Barton (TX)
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Brown (OH)
     Carson (IN)
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Doyle
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Hastings (FL)
     Jones (OH)
     Linder
     McDermott
     Meeks (NY)
     Quinn
     Reyes
     Smith (TX)
     Tauzin

                              {time}  1352

  Mrs. EMERSON, Ms. HART, and Messrs. CRANE, NEY, KENNEDY of Minnesota, 
KING of Iowa, BACHUS, BRADY of Texas and HALL changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. HINCHEY, CLYBURN and BISHOP of Georgia changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was not agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 301 I inadvertently voted 
``yea'' I meant to vote ``nay.''

                          ____________________