[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10105-10110]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 649 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 649

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 95) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2005 and including the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. All points of 
     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
       Sec. 2. (a) Upon adoption in the House of the conference 
     report to accompany Senate Concurrent Resolution 95, and 
     until a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2005 has been adopted by the Congress--
       (1) the provisions of the conference report and its joint 
     explanatory statement shall have force and effect in the 
     House; and
       (2) for purposes of title III of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, the conference report shall be considered 
     adopted by the Congress.
       (b) Nothing in this section may be construed to engage rule 
     XXVII.
       Sec. 3. The House being in possession of the official 
     papers, the managers on the part of the House at the 
     conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on H.R. 
     2660 shall be, and they are hereby, discharged to the end 
     that H.R. 2660 and its accompanying papers, be, and they are 
     hereby, laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 649 waives all points of order against 
the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005, and its consideration. 
The rule provides that the conference report shall be considered read 
and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Section 2 of the rule provides that upon adoption in the House of the 
conference report, and until a concurrent

[[Page 10106]]

resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 has been adopted by 
Congress, the provisions of the conference report and its joint 
explanatory statement shall have force and effect in the House.
  The rule provides that for the purposes of title III of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the conference report shall be 
considered for the purposes of the House to have been adopted by the 
Congress. The rule provides that nothing in section 2 may be construed 
to engage rule XXVII.
  Section 3 of the rule provides that the conferees of the House on 
H.R. 2660, shall be, and they are hereby, discharged and that H.R. 2660 
and its accompanying papers be, and are hereby, laid upon the table.
  This conference report adheres to the principal goals of the House-
passed budget, Mr. Speaker, strengthening America, growing our economy, 
and continuing our Nation's long history as a land of opportunity. This 
budget provides for increased funding to help secure America's borders, 
defend against biological attacks, protect our critical infrastructure, 
and to prepare first responders. It takes a comprehensive and 
responsible approach to protecting our Nation, winning the war on 
terror, and preparing us for future security needs and challenges.
  Mr. Speaker, our economy is growing. It is headed in the right 
direction. By avoiding tax increases and protecting the child tax 
credit, relief from the marriage penalty, and tax relief for lower-
income workers, this budget continues the policies that are helping to 
grow our economy. The budget also provides for full funding of Medicare 
so that seniors can get help paying for their prescription drugs for 
the first time ever.
  It also includes a $3.3 billion increase in budget authority for 
education to accommodate increases in programs like Pell Grants, 
special education, and Title I. And it provides for the full funding of 
No Child Left Behind.
  Mr. Speaker, it helps us keep promises to our veterans by providing 
an additional $1.2 billion over the President's requested increase for 
veterans' health care.
  The budget provides for these priorities and puts us on track to cut 
the deficit in 4 years, with deficits declining each and every year, 
and this is accomplished without raising taxes on the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I would like 
to congratulate the chairman of that committee, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle), and the conferees for producing a budget that is focused 
on securing America, creating jobs, and responsibly planning for the 
future. I encourage, therefore, my colleagues to support both the rule, 
H.R. 649, and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes, and I want to 
thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, since this mammoth budget was made 
available to Members of this House only a couple of hours ago, it is 
difficult to know exactly what goodies and gimmicks are hidden inside 
of it. We know enough, however, to know that this Republican budget is 
bad for the economy, bad for American working families, and bad for the 
future of this country.
  Two months ago, the Republican leadership proposed a budget 
resolution that had tax cuts that were not paid for and slashed 
Medicaid by $2 billion. On top of that, that budget did not include any 
legitimate plan for bringing our country out of the skyrocketing, 
record deficits, deficits made worse by the policies of this President 
and this Republican Congress. That budget resolution passed by only 
three votes.
  And now the Republican leadership wants the House to consider a 
conference report that they claim is very similar to that bill.
  Mr. Speaker, that budget was bad then and it is bad now.
  This conference report continues the Republican pattern of fiscal 
mismanagement. Contrary to their claims, this conference report is only 
a 1-year budget.
  Now, we used to consider 10-year budgets so we could fully assess the 
consequences of our fiscal actions. Then the Republican leadership 
changed the budgets to 5 years, so they could better mask the long-term 
impact of their misguided policies. And now we are considering 1-year 
budgets. What is next, 6-month budgets? 1-week budgets? How about a 
budget for the next 5 minutes?
  This is the worst kind of shell game. It is a gimmick, a smoke screen 
that the American people will see right through.
  It is time the Republicans in this body face the facts. They 
squandered a $6 trillion surplus, turning it into an almost $3 trillion 
deficit. This is the most fiscally irresponsible congressional 
leadership and administration in the history of the United States of 
America, and now they are seeking to make it worse by continuing to 
extend tax cuts that are not paid for.
  Now, my grandfather always told me, you cannot dig your way out of a 
hole, and that is exactly where we are today, in a fiscal hole. 
Extending these various tax cuts without paying for them may make for 
good press releases, but it is lousy fiscal policy.
  And I do not know if my colleagues are aware of the inclusion of the 
Hastert Rule in this conference report. The Hastert Rule allows this 
body to raise the debt limit, also known as the national debt, without 
a direct vote by the Members of this House. In other words, Mr. 
Speaker, we busted our credit limit and we are giving ourselves an 
increase without even having the decency of taking responsibility for 
it. And guess what? We are sending the bill to our kids and our 
grandkids. That is wrong.
  It is important for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to know 
that a vote for this conference report is a vote to increase the debt. 
A ``yes'' vote will raise the debt over the $8 trillion level for the 
first time in American history. Now, I hope Members will think long and 
hard about what kind of future we are creating for our kids and 
grandkids.
  I believe that we have a responsibility to vote up or down on 
increasing the debt. Burying this debt increase in the conference 
report shirks the responsibility of the Members of this House.
  You know, my Republican friends always complain about protectionists, 
but this conference report is one of the most protectionist things I 
have ever seen. But instead of protecting jobs, it protects politically 
vulnerable Republicans from being forced to vote up or down on 
increasing the national debt. It protects the Republicans from having 
to pay for their tax cuts.
  And one other thing: As if the policies in this conference report 
were not bad enough, the Republican leadership added a provision to 
this rule that closes the conference on the fiscal year 2004 Labor, 
HHS, and Education bill. My colleagues and many Americans may be asking 
themselves, is that bill not already law?
  Well, the truth is, the provisions that make up the FY 2004 Labor, 
HHS, and Education appropriations bill were included in the omnibus 
appropriations bill signed into law early this year. But the conference 
report on that bill was never formally closed. Under the rules of the 
House, Members of the majority and minority can still offer motions to 
instruct. My good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller), has attempted to do just that several times over the past 
couple of weeks.
  Now, adoption of this rule today will formally close the conference, 
meaning that no Member can instruct conferees on any issue. The motions 
to instruct by the gentleman from California have focused on the 
administration's overtime policies. It is clear that the Republican 
leadership is scared to death of talking about the Bush 
administration's misguided plan to take away overtime pay for millions 
of American workers. The purpose of this section in the rule is to 
muzzle the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and any other 
Members who attempt to bring this important issue to the attention of 
the House and to the American people.

[[Page 10107]]

  Why is this leadership so afraid of open and fair debate?
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule and it is a bad conference report, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to 
respond to a couple of points.
  The gentleman correctly pointed out that within this rule there is 
the provision that the debt limit will be raised. I think most people 
in this body recognize that.
  I mean, after all, we inherited 4 years ago a recession, then 9/11 
happened, and we certainly had to fund the war on terror and all of 
those efforts, and that took more money than we had. In fact, in every 
budget that we considered on the floor, the other side acknowledged 
that we had to raise the debt limit.
  So, yes, if this is passed, and if the Senate passes this conference 
report, the debt limit will have been raised. However, if the Senate 
does not act on this, then we will have another opportunity to look at 
that debt limit in a different manner.
  I just wanted to make that clarification.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, at 6:20 a.m. this morning, this budget 
resolution, the conference report, so-called, was filed. At 7:15 a.m., 
it was before the Committee on Rules. No one outside the actual 
drafters of the legislation had had any time to look at its contents.
  It only applies to $2.3 trillion of spending authority. Some way to 
run a railroad.
  And now, when the bill comes before the House, it comes because the 
rules of the House require a 1-day layover for a rule, so that we have 
a little time at least and not get surprised with provisions that we 
did not see on quick notice. That was overturned by meeting early this 
morning, adjourning and meeting again and deeming 1 day to have 
expired. So this budget resolution comes to us under sham 
circumstances.
  You have to ask why? Why should something of this gravity, of this 
importance to the fiscal policy of this country come to us under these 
circumstances? And there is only one answer I can give you. It will not 
stand scrutiny. It simply will not stand scrutiny.
  The Budget Act calls for spending in major functions of the budget, 
about 19 all together, and it calls for revenues, and it calls for 
those expenditures and revenues to be taken function by function and 
spread out, projected out over a period of 5 years. This budget 
resolution has real numbers for only 1 year. It is not extended out 
with real numbers. It has plugged numbers, but not real numbers. For 
only 1 year are there real numbers.
  For the first time in 20 years, we will take up today, if this rule 
passes, a budget resolution that does not contain a 5-year run-out of 
the spending levels that we are approving.
  In addition, when we set out with this budget, it was recognized that 
there were some budget process rules we adopted in the 1990s that 
worked and had a profound effect on our ability to move the budget from 
a deficit of $290 billion to a surplus of $236 billion in the year 
2000. One of those rules was the so-called PAYGO rule which says, if 
you want to cut taxes and you have a deficit, you have to offset the 
cut in taxes with an increase elsewhere, or at least with a cut in 
entitlement spending that is commensurate to your tax revenue cut.
  That rule no longer applies because it has legislatively expired. We 
have tried and tried to restore that rule so that we can put some 
discipline, some starch into the process here in the House, and we have 
not succeeded because of opposition on the other side.
  What we now get in this so-called budget resolution is an extension 
of the PAYGO bill, the PAYGO rule for 1 year that applies in one House. 
It will not apply here in the House of Representatives. That means all 
sorts of tax cuts can still originate in the House of Representatives, 
will not be subject to a PAYGO point of order, can be sent to the 
Senate; there they may be defeated on 60-vote PAYGO point of order, but 
otherwise we have a crippled, broken-down PAYGO rule that applies for 
only 1 year.
  When you read this bill, this resolution, and see what little it 
contains, you have to ask yourself, why bring it up at all? If you are 
not going to comply with the Budget Act, if you are not going to give 
5-year extensions, if you are not going to use real numbers, if you are 
not going to extend PAYGO, why bring it up at all? Well, it does a 
couple of things. It allows you to claim that you are doing a budget 
resolution without doing the single most important objective in a 
budget resolution, and that is laying down a plan for erasing this huge 
deficit we have.

                              {time}  1100

  Members should understand that if they vote for this budget 
resolution, they will be voting to have a deficit next year of $367 
billion by the calculation of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. That includes an offset in Social Security. If they wipe out the 
offset in Social Security, the total deficit would be $541 billion.
  And guess what, because of deficits we have sustained every year, we 
are right up against the statutory ceiling for the national debt. It 
has to be raised and raised soon, or we will bump the ceiling again. 
And guess what, if Members vote for this resolution, buried under all 
of these plug numbers, these phony numbers, buried under them is a 
critically important feature and that is it will indirectly trigger an 
increase in the debt ceiling. At least with respect to the House of 
Representatives, we will be deemed to have voted for an increase in the 
debt ceiling of $690 billion. I am putting Members on notice of that.
  So Members who vote for this resolution should know there is a 
critical working component of it and Members will vote to raise the 
debt ceiling by $690 billion to $8.1 trillion.
  So in a thumbnail, here is what you will be voting for when you vote 
for this sham resolution: First, Members will vote to raise the deficit 
to $541 billion without Social Security, for $367 billion including 
Social Security, add $25 billion more in supplementals for defense, and 
we are right back up to a $400 billion deficit.
  Members will not be voting for any plan in process, any solution to 
the deficit, but will be putting us on a path, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, of accumulating, and this is their number, 
$5.132 trillion over the next 10 fiscal years.
  That is what Members will be voting for if they vote for this 
resolution. It would be better that we vote down this resolution, send 
the conferees back to conference and tell them to do what the Budget 
Act requires them to do and tell them to get a handle on the deficit 
and put our fiscal house in order. Vote against the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, for all of the reasons 
mentioned by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), not only does this budget 
resolution graphically demonstrate the incompetency of the Republicans 
to deal with the budget of this country and the budget resolution in 
this House, but it does something much more sinister than that.
  Buried in this resolution is the prohibition against any votes to be 
taken in the House of Representatives against the provisions offered by 
the administration, the rules that they put forth to deny millions of 
working people in this country the right to overtime. When these rules 
go into effect, if we cannot vote against them as the Senate has voted 
against them, when these rules go into effect, millions of Americans 
will be required to work overtime

[[Page 10108]]

in the future; they just will not get overtime pay.
  That means for millions of America's families, families that use 
overtime that is so important to them to qualify for the mortgages on 
their house, to qualify to buy an automobile, to put their kids through 
school, they are not going to have that in their paycheck in the future 
because they are going to be excluded from being eligible for overtime.
  Now the Senate addressed this rule, and they voted against it. They 
voted to change it. We fought hard against the original rule because 
the original rule would have excluded maybe 11 million Americans from 
the right to have overtime pay when they work overtime. Americans 
understand why they get overtime pay, because when their employer comes 
and says they have to work late on Thursday night or Friday night, that 
means they have to rearrange their child care, that means they have to 
rearrange their ability to spend time with their family, that may mean 
they have to rearrange their doctor's appointments, and you have to 
change your life around for the convenience of the employer. So you get 
overtime pay.
  Now when the employer comes to the worker and says he or she has to 
work overtime, there will be no overtime pay. That is why this House 
and the Senate defeated those rules on a bipartisan basis, and the 
administration now has come up with a new rule. And we find out that 
even the new rule excludes millions of hard-working Americans from 
overtime pay, people struggling to hold onto a middle-class lifestyle 
and standard of living for their families. That is about to evaporate. 
That is about to evaporate because this House will not allow us, the 
Republican leadership will not allow us to have an up-or-down vote.
  We are fighting so hard for democracy in Iraq, but we cannot have an 
up-or-down vote in the House of Representatives. We cannot have an up-
or-down vote. We cannot have an up-or-down vote because the majority, 
on a bipartisan basis, will vote to overturn these rules. By a vote of 
99-0, the Senate voted to change these rules and exclude from the 
impact of these rules, to try to save these middle-class families, 
computer programmers, licensed practical nurses, nurse midwives, oil 
and gas pipeline workers, oil and gas field workers, oil platform 
workers, refinery workers. Get the message here?
  Millions of hard-working Americans, the Senate voted 99-0 to exclude 
steelworkers, shipyard workers, teachers, technicians, journalists, 
chefs, cooks, police officers, firefighters, fire sergeants, police 
sergeants, emergency medical technicians; 99 to nothing the Senate 
voted, that means bipartisan. That means all of the Republicans and all 
of the Democrats voted to protect these workers and their families. In 
the House of Representatives, the Republicans will not let Members have 
a vote on this.
  We tried twice in the last week to have a vote, and they voted on a 
partisan straight party line to subject these workers to these rules 
that will cut their pay this year.
  When workers are faced with outsourcing, plant closings, no wage 
growth, higher health care premiums, now the Republicans have decided 
to cut their overtime pay. Not only do they show no concern for people 
who are unemployed; but if you have a job, the Republican's initiative 
is to cut your pay. But what are they going to do, they are going to 
continue the cover-up because buried in this rule they have denied the 
ability of this House to vote on this rule.
  Again, the Senate, 99-0, voted to protect construction employees, 
production line employees, carpenters, mechanics, plumbers, 
ironworkers, craftsmen, anybody earning an hourly wage because the rule 
does not protect hourly wage earners. It helps painters, cement masons, 
stationary engineers, longshoremen, utility workers, welders. Does this 
sound like Members' constituency? Does this sound like the people who 
work in our congressional districts every day? Yes, it does.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the people who built America, they built the 
middle class; and now the Republicans are taking away their overtime. 
But Members will not get to have a vote on that because the Republicans 
are afraid of the vote. They are afraid of democracy. They are afraid 
of the people's House working its will so they have shut down the 
debate and shut down the ability to have a vote.
  The Senate had a vote, and they even voted on a bipartisan basis to 
exclude anybody who has overtime today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So apparently the Senate can have 
bipartisan representation, apparently the Senate can have democracy, 
but this House cannot have democracy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. * * *
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. * * *
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. * * *
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. * * *
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. My point of order is when a Member yields 
time to another Member, does that Member have responsibility to abide 
by the time he was yielded to speak?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's point of order is sustained. 
All Members are reminded to heed the gavel.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, we would not have Members who feel they 
are oppressed if we had rules that permitted full and free debate in 
the greatest democracy in the world. We go abroad, sending our troops 
to promote democracy, but we cannot seem to have a modicum of comity 
and democracy here in the House of Representatives.
  This conference report on the budget was filed this morning at 6:20 
a.m., less than 5 hours ago. The Nation's budget, multi-trillion dollar 
budget filed 5 hours ago, and we do not even have a chance to review 
it.
  Under the Republican leadership, this budget resolution is, and the 
entire budget process has become, a complete fraud on the American 
people. Just like the way they have covered up the cost of the Iraq war 
and the Medicare prescription drug bill, with this budget congressional 
Republicans are trying to hide not only the true costs of making the 
tax cuts permanent, but also the huge size of the rapidly exploding 
deficit.
  And instead of giving us an opportunity to debate and vote separately 
on raising the Nation's debt limit for the third straight year by 
almost $700 billion this year alone, the Republicans have included that 
increase under the cover of all of these other shenanigans in this 
budget resolution.
  So let us be clear so when Members come to the floor representing 
their constituencies, they understand a vote for this budget resolution 
is a vote to increase the debt ceiling of the United States to over $8 
trillion. Yes, I said $8 trillion. Now, this will ensure that our tax 
dollars go not to shoring up Social Security and Medicare, or investing 
in our people, in their health care, education, or taking care of our 
veterans so that their widows do not get taxed, but to simply paying 
interest on this debt that Republicans continue to raise and just do 
not seem to care how far they continue to go.
  Republicans talk all the time about fiscal responsibility, but by 
restoring

[[Page 10109]]

the budget enforcement rules, the rules that say you have to pay for 
the expenditures of the Nation as you go, they do that for only 1 year, 
and they do that where? Not in the House. They impose that upon the 
Senate. So they continue to spend wildly here in the House, have all of 
the tax cuts proposals in the world, keep driving us into deficit, but 
we have no budget enforcement rules here.
  Mr. Speaker, these priorities are making the wealthy tax cuts 
permanent regardless of the damage that will be caused not only to the 
citizens of this country, but to the Nation's economic well-being. Vote 
``no'' against the rule and against the resolution. It is ultimately 
the last opportunity to preserve America's future and the 
intergenerational responsibility this Republican majority has 
forfeited.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, remember that old commercial, when E.F. Hutton talks, 
people listen? Well, I hope no one on Wall Street is listening today, 
and I certainly hope that Alan Greenspan is not listening or watching 
because this Republican budget is $8 trillion of debt. Yes, Members 
heard me correctly.
  If this budget passes for the third time in as many years on a 
Republican rule, we are not bringing down the national debt. What we 
did so successfully under the years of Clinton and Rubin, we are 
undoing during this administration's time. No, our vote today increases 
yet again the debt of this Nation. How we could have gone from $5 
trillion in budget surpluses under Clinton-Rubin to $8 trillion in debt 
ought to be shocking to all.
  Surpluses as far as the eye could see, we were suggesting just a few 
years ago. Today, $2 trillion in revenue cuts; and now 4 years later, 
surpluses are but a memory, and we have debt as far as the eye can see.
  Well, here is the simple strategy: we will have two wars with three 
tax cuts. A billion dollars a week for Iraq, do not worry about it, we 
need a tax cut.

                              {time}  1115

  A billion dollars a month in Afghanistan. Do not worry about it. We 
need a tax cut.
  Troops to Haiti? Let us have a tax cut.
  That is government by declaration. Things are always getting better 
even though we do not see any evidence of that. And then we hear from 
the party that built its base in American history on fiscal 
responsibility, increased spending and cut taxes. The evidence is there 
for all to see.
  Then we are told on this floor that they inherited a recession. 
Everybody in America knows they inherited the best economy in the 
history of America, all due, I believe, to what at that time was 
bipartisan relationships in this House. They are nonexistent now. These 
Members on the other side come to the floor day after day and insist on 
tax cuts while fighting two wars at the same time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, a vote for this budget resolution 
conference report is a vote to automatically approve a $690 billion 
increase in the national debt. Under the Hastert rule, passage of the 
budget resolution conference report would deem that the House had 
passed separate legislation.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle used to criticize this rule 
when the House of Representatives was under Democratic control and 
repealed it in 1997. But when the national debt started growing at a 
record pace, they reinstated it. I agreed with them when they 
criticized it in the past. Why have they changed?
  A vote against the previous question would require the House and 
Senate to have a full and open debate and vote on increasing the debt 
limit instead of using the budget resolution to avoid a debate on 
increasing the debt limit. Last year the leadership slipped through a 
$984 billion increase in the debt limit, the largest increase in the 
history of our country, without an up-and-down vote. This came less 
than 8 months after we raised the Federal debt ceiling by a whopping 
$450 billion. Now the House leadership is trying to slip through 
another $690 billion increase in the debt ceiling without a debate.
  The national debt has increased by $670 billion over the last 12 
months and $1.5 trillion over the last 3 years. Approximately 70 
percent of our borrowing from the public last year came from foreign 
investors. At the end of March, foreign investors held $1.7 trillion of 
our national debt. The $323 billion we spent last year for interest on 
our $7 trillion national debt represents a debt tax that must be paid 
by all future generations. Continuing to run up debt as we are doing 
will guarantee our children and grandchildren are overtaxed for the 
rest of their lives.
  If my Republican colleagues honestly believe that tax cuts with 
borrowed money is good economic policy, they should be willing to stand 
up and take credit for the increase in the national debt that is 
necessary to pay for these tax cuts. Just like credit card spending 
limits serve as tools to force families to examine their household 
budgets, the debt limit reminds Congress and the President from time to 
time to reevaluate our budget policies.
  Before we vote to increase our national debt by another $690 billion, 
Congress should sit down and figure out how to stop running up this 
debt rather than just bringing us a continued reinstatement of what we 
are doing. I would say to my friends on the other side again, I would 
gladly join them and will to increase the debt ceiling if they would 
agree to add budget enforcement rules that they supported in 1997. I 
hope the four Senators will stay fast in the other body that they will 
do those things that they said they are going to do to send this budget 
right back to us until we at least get serious about restoring fiscal 
discipline.
  Put PAYGO into this and we have got a deal. But, no, I read where the 
majority leader said recently the only thing he cares about in the 
budget is making it easier to pass tax cuts and that everything else in 
the budget really does not matter to him. Increasing the debt limit 
over $8 trillion matters to me. I think it matters to a lot of other 
Members on both sides of the aisle. The decision on whether or not we 
make it harder for Congress and the President to pass legislation that 
puts us deeper into debt matters a great lot to me.
  If cutting taxes with borrowed money is all that matters to you, then 
vote for this rule and vote for this budget. But if you are concerned 
about a national debt approaching $8 trillion, if you are concerned 
about deficits of several hundred billion dollars structural as far as 
the eye can see, vote against the rule and against this budget.
  Vote against the previous question. The vote on the previous question 
will be a clear up-and-down vote as to whether or not we should have at 
least 1 hour to discuss increasing our debt ceiling, at least 1 hour in 
which we would have an honest discussion between both sides as to 
whether or not we should continue in the path that we are on believing 
that that is the best for our country. Vote against the previous 
question.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let me just make Members painfully aware of 
what this rule will entail, since they have only had minutes to even 
acquaint themselves with the fact that it was coming before them today.
  If Members vote for this rule, they will vote to make in order a 
budget resolution with the following consequences for our deficit and 
our national debt. Per the calculation in this budget resolution, the 
deficit for 2005 will be $367 billion. That is probably the best dated 
sum they can come up with. There will undoubtedly be some more defense 
supplementals, probably another $25 billion, before 2005 is out. That 
will take the deficit to $392 billion. If we take Social Security out 
of the calculation, as we should, we

[[Page 10110]]

should not include it, the non-Social Security deficit, the deficit in 
the basic accounts of the Federal budget in 2005 if Members vote for 
this resolution will be $566 billion, which will necessitate another 
increase in the debt ceiling.
  If Members vote for this resolution, they will, make no mistake about 
it, be voting to raise the statutory debt ceiling by $690 billion. That 
is the first in a series of raises, because if you read CBO's report on 
the President's budget which is essentially embodied in this resolution 
and run that budget out over 10 years between 2005 and 2014, according 
to CBO, we will cumulatively incur a debt of $5.132 trillion.
  Vote for this rule and you will be voting against any plan or any 
process to come to terms with this enormous, record-breaking deficit. 
There is no plan. There is no solution. Do not fool yourself in this 
resolution. Vote for it and you vote to tread water while the problem 
gets worse. You vote to kick the can down the road. If you want to deal 
with the deficit, deal with this debt, vote against this resolution, 
and send the conferees back to the conference. If you want to dodge the 
issue for another year while it gets worse, vote for this resolution. I 
would suggest we vote against it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will be urging Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question in 
order to expose a part of this budget resolution that my Republican 
colleagues would rather not talk about. When Members vote for this 
budget conference report, they will be voting to increase the statutory 
debt limit by almost $700 billion for the next fiscal year. An 
uncomfortable fact they would rather not talk about today is that this 
budget raises our national statutory debt limit to the highest level in 
our history, to more than $8 trillion. This comes on top of the fact 
that last year Republicans used the budget resolution to slip through a 
$984 billion increase in the debt limit, the largest increase in the 
debt limit in the history of the United States of America without an 
up-or-down vote in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, there is an honest disagreement in this House over our 
Nation's fiscal priorities. Many of us think that with large deficits 
and the growing costs of the war in Iraq, we need to rethink our budget 
priorities and figure out how to make our revenues match up better with 
our spending needs. My Republican colleagues do not seem to think there 
is a problem. They think it is just fine to continue on with the 
spending and the tax policies that have led us into this current fiscal 
mess. They seem to think it is fine to keep building up our national 
debt and leave it to our kids and our grandkids to figure out how to 
pay for it.
  I would say to my Republican colleagues, if they honestly believe 
that tax cuts with borrowed money is good economic policy, they should 
be willing to stand up in this House and vote to increase the national 
debt to pay for their tax cuts instead of relying on undercover 
parliamentary tricks. Republicans used to criticize Democrats for using 
House rules to slip through increases in the national debt without a 
separate vote. That is exactly what they are doing here today. If they 
believe in the fiscal policies that are sending the national debt 
through the roof, they should be willing to stand up on the floor of 
this House and vote for them.
  I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from 
taking up the budget conference report. All it does is require 
Republicans to take responsibility for a fiscal policy that by the end 
of this year will cost our kids and our grandkids $8 trillion.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to insert the text of the 
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Again I would urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important document. It is an important 
document because this sets the parameters of congressional spending to 
fund the government for 2005. We have heard a great deal from the other 
side in this debate about the debt limit. I addressed that earlier. I 
acknowledge that because we inherited a recession 4 years ago and we 
were attacked by terrorists and now we are engaged in an international 
war on terrorism, yes, we have spent more than we have taken in, and we 
do have to address this issue of raising the debt limit. But if we do 
not pass a budget resolution, that means we will not have any 
discipline on the appropriation process as we go through appropriating 
dollars for fiscal year 2005. That means if we have no discipline that 
the debt limit will increase higher because that is the way this body 
has always worked. Passing this budget is very important to put that 
discipline in place.
  I would also make the observation, as I made earlier, every budget 
substitute amendment that was presented earlier when we were debating 
the House version of the budget, every one of those budgets 
acknowledged that we were going to have to address raising the debt 
limit in the future. Every one of them. They had it in different ways, 
different opportunities. Nevertheless, everyone acknowledged the fact 
that we have to address the debt limit problem.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest this, and I have learned 
this in the time that you and I have been here in this body. We will go 
through the appropriation process one way or the other. I think it is 
better to have the discipline of having a budget. But if we do not have 
the discipline of having a budget agreed to by both Houses, I suspect 
that what we will see when we go through the appropriation process from 
the other side, we will see, continually, amendments offered to raise 
more spending, which, of course, if it followed what they would be 
suggesting, we will have to raise the debt limit even higher. Sometimes 
I wonder what the debate is when I hear their rhetoric as we go through 
this process.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question, vote 
for the rule and the underlying resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

                   Previous Question for H. Res. 649

       H. Con. Res. 95, the Conference Report on the Budget 2004

      Amendment to H. Res. 649 Offered by Representative McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. Upon the adoption of this resolution rule XXVII 
     shall not apply to the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95, setting forth the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 2005 and including 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2006 
     through 2009.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________