THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

I strongly oppose this rule. I strongly oppose the notion that many of us on a

[Page: H1025]  GPO's PDF

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. MOORE).

   Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am here to oppose the rule. The President has asked for bipartisanship, and I have bent over backwards to be bipartisan. In fact, I voted for the President's tax cut last year. When we were asked to be bipartisan, we have tried. In fact, a group of us, the Blue Dogs, submitted a substitute budget using all of the numbers in the Republican budget with two differences: One, that we used Congressional Budget Office numbers, the same numbers used for the last 10 years, not switching numbers; number two, that we added a midyear review in August in case the projections do not come out the way that we hope they will.

   So when we hear a Member on the other side say there was not an alternative or substitute budget submitted, it is not true. They can say black is white, but it does not make it true. They have the votes, and they denied our substitute budget. They denied us the opportunity to present a substitute budget. They know that the numbers do not add up.

   Mr. Speaker, why is a review important? Because Congress right now is in the Social Security funds and will be in $200 billion by the end of the next fiscal year, and $1 trillion over the next 10 years if things are not changed. Under the present budget and the proposal, it is a trillion dollars into Social Security funds over the next 10 years. I voted for the tax cut. I want a chance to work with the other side on a bipartisan manner, but it is not happening. We reached out to them and basically were slapped in the face.

   I wish we could start this over because we could work together given half an even and fair chance. The President and the Secretary of Treasury has asked for a $750 billion increase in the debt limit. That is a $750 billion blank check. I think Congress has a responsibility to make sure that we oversee the use of that money and not write blank checks or provide blank checks to any person.

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SPRATT).

   Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. KIRK) invoked my name, and let me assure the gentleman, I am a free agent. I am comfortable with the decision that our caucus has made and our leadership has made. Frankly, we tried to produce a budget resolution, and we found to have a competing resolution on the floor and an apples-to-apples comparison, we would have to use the gimmicks and the devices the other side used to get the results they achieve. We did not want to do that for a couple of reasons, not the least of which we did not want to go to 5 years. We think a 10-year budget is proper. We did not want to use OMB, as complacent as they can be sometimes in helping Members get the bottom line that they want. We wanted to stick with the Congressional Budget Office, the neutral and nonpartisan group.

   Mr. Speaker, for these and many other reasons, we decided not to do a budget resolution; but there will be a Democratic resolution. It will be presented in the other body by Senator Conrad.

   Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

   (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation. As a member of the Committee on Rules and the Committee on the Budget, I congratulate the gentleman from California (Chairman DREIER) on a fair rule, for allowing for open debate, and for the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. NUSSLE) for producing a wartime budget that recognizes the need to secure our homeland, win the war on terror, and bolster our economy.

   By providing record increases in defense spending, providing for greater intelligence networking and funding antiterrorism measures, our budget takes a comprehensive approach to winning the war on terror.

   By including funds for aviation security, defending against biological attacks, and securing America's borders, our budget makes homeland defense our highest priority. By allowing American taxpayers to keep $66 billion more of their own money during the next 5 years through economic stimulus tax relief, our budget helps stabilize and secure our economy.

   Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion lately about the important of a balanced budget. I have always been a strong proponent of balanced budgets; but even proponents of proposals for balanced budget constitutional amendments like we addressed several years ago, those allow flexibilities when emergencies occur. Surely this time of national emergency, war and economic distress more than justifies temporary budget flexibility.

   Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight four aspects of this resolution which are of particular interest to my area of the Pacific Northwest: First, as chairman of the House Nuclear Cleanup Caucus, I am pleased that the Committee on the Budget has included my provision to set the Department of Energy's nuclear cleanup budget at $6.7 billion for next year, and a total of $1.1 billion to be available to fully implement the Department of Energy's accelerated cleanup effort.

   Second, by including bipartisan language authored by myself and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. HOOLEY), our budget highlights local fish recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest. People in central Washington and throughout the region are dedicated to ensuring the survival of our salmon. It is crucial that the Federal Government and Pacific Northwest residents continue to work together to address the entire range of factors impacting fish populations.

   Further, this budget serves our growers and farmers by fully providing for the expansion of the Market Access Program included in the House farm bill. Funding for this program will more than double from $90 million to $200 million in order to open new markets and expand trade opportunities for American agricultural products.

   Finally, the budget resolution provides $700 million in additional borrowing authority for the Bonneville Power Administration. This additional borrowing authority is supported on a bipartisan basis by all Members from the Pacific Northwest.

[Time: 14:00]

   This increase will be used to assist the BPA in upgrading and building transmission lines that are urgently needed. I am pleased that this resolution fully funds the President's request for additional borrowing authority.

   Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying resolution.

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. HOLT).

   Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding time.

   Mr. Speaker, if there is anything bipartisan about this budget resolution, it is probably our mutual displeasure with it. I do not think anyone is satisfied with this budget. And even if my colleagues on the other side accept the bottom line, that this budget resolution will run a real deficit and then continue to spend Social Security and Medicare dollars to pay for general government for years to come, I would say this year's partisan budget process does not permit a single substantive amendment, not in the Budget Committee, not in the Rules Committee, not on the House floor.

   I mention only one. Yesterday, I asked the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment that would have made improvements to this budget, specifically to increase our investment in research and development. It was not allowed. This budget resolution does provide increased funding for the National Institutes of Health, but it does not provide enough funding for general scientific research and development through the National Science Foundation and other agencies. The NSF, the National Science Foundation, provides the backbone for the science and the scientists that are necessary to ensure that this Nation remains a leader. In other words, if the NIH investment is going to pay off, we need to make an investment in the other areas of science research and development.

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. STENHOLM).

   (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I take to the floor in the strongest possible opposition to this unfair rule. I cannot believe my colleagues on this side that can stand up and say, ``Support this fair rule.''

   But the first thing I want to say today is let the record clearly state, and I could not agree more, that Congress must join the President to provide for the security of our Nation, our troops, our law enforcement officials, and everyone else who is fighting the war on terrorism. We agree. However, it is cowardly, not patriotic, to use this vitally important priority for all of us as a scapegoat for abandoning all fiscal responsibility and the budget process in the pursuit of this unfair rule.

   As a member of the minority, I do not expect I am going to win very often on the floor. But I do expect the majority to show a modicum of respect for the democratic process, if not for Democrats. To have every single Democratic amendment, both a complete substitute as well as numerous single bullet amendments, completely shut out of the debate is outrageous. What really bothers me about this, I remember the times in the last 23 years in which I have stood up with you on this side of the aisle when you were in the minority and demanded that you have an opportunity to have your amendments on the floor and debated and usually I was with you.

   But yesterday the Rules Committee said ``no'' to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. MOORE), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. TANNER), and myself when under the rules that you sent to us, we brought you a complete substitute and you said, ``No, we do not wish to allow you to have 1 hour of debate on a substitute.'' We offered the good hand of friendship to you and you said ``no.'' That is your privilege. That is your privilege. You can do so. But it is not just a few Blue Dogs or the Democrats who have a problem. The majority seems determined to ignore it, but they have the same problem that needs to be solved and that is a deficit.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, that denied me an opportunity to have debate.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that in the testimony that the gentleman from Texas gave yesterday before the Committee on Rules, he made it very clear that what he was offering was, and this is a direct quote, ``a perfecting amendment to the chairman's budget.'' That is how he described what did come forward, he said as a substitute. He described it as a perfecting amendment to the chairman's budget. I thank my friend for yielding.

   Mr. STENHOLM. I take back my time from the chairman and say that these are the rules of the House. The Rules Committee said to all people who brought a rule, ``Bring a budget that is scored by CBO.'' We did. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. NUSSLE) did not bring a budget to the Committee on Rules scored by CBO. You ignored your own rules in allowing the gentleman from Iowa to come forward with an OMB-scored when your rules and what you instructed me to do is come CBO-scored. You chose to ignore it, which you can do. You can waive any rule any time you want to in the majority. But let me remind the gentleman that the chickens will come home to roost.

   You are going to have to vote to borrow $750 billion, and it is going to be more than that with the economic game plan you folks are on. You are going to get to stand up and provide 218 votes to increase the debt ceiling when we could have been with you and we offered to be with you in a bipartisan way to the President saying, We do not have to resort to games; we can do it under the rules of the House and we can do it bipartisanly. But no thanks, you did not want any part of that.

   There is justice in this world, and you are going to get a chance pretty soon to borrow that money in an up and down vote and explain why you are doing it when you could have had something better.

   Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield again such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. NUSSLE), chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for a colloquy.

   Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

   Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa on H. Con. Res. 353, the fiscal year 2003 House budget resolution.

   Mr. NUSSLE. I am pleased to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman.

   Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. First of all, I would like to commend Chairman NUSSLE of the Committee on the Budget for bringing this resolution to the floor. I am very pleased with the cooperative working relationship that has developed between our two committees.

   As you know, the President's budget proposes an $8.6 billion, or 27 percent, reduction in highway funding , from $31.8 billion in fiscal year 2002 to $23.2 billion in fiscal year 2003. Most of this proposed decrease in funding is based on the revenue-aligned budget authority provision of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, otherwise known as TEA-21, which I continue to support in principle. However, it is simply too harmful to our State transportation budgets and our economy to allow such a dramatic funding cut to take place next year. Therefore, my goal has been to restore the highway program to a reasonable, sustainable funding level of at least $27.7 billion, which is the funding level envisioned by fiscal year 2003 in TEA-21. Any language to the contrary in the report accompanying H. Con. Res. 353 does not accurately reflect my views on this subject.

   My position on this issue is made clear in H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act. H.R. 3694 calls for highway funding of not less than $27.7 billion in fiscal year 2003. The words ``not less than'' are profoundly important to me and the 315 cosponsors of the legislation. This is a fluid process, and I reserve the right of my committee to move this bill or some version of it in the future if necessary. If it becomes clear to me that the highway trust fund can sustain a higher funding level and at that time there is significant support for restoring more than $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2003, then I will actively support a further increase in highway funding . The budget resolution adds $4.4 billion for highways and highway safety, thereby increasing funding for the highway program to $27.7 billion. This is a significant improvement over the President's budget. For that and other reasons, I support the resolution and urge my colleagues, on my committee especially, to do likewise.

   I would like to clarify my views with the gentleman from Iowa and ask if there is anything in H. Con. Res. 353 that would preclude adding more than $4.4 billion to the highway program at some point in the future.

   Mr. NUSSLE. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and also for the cooperation between our committees. I agree with the gentleman from Alaska that there is nothing in this resolution that would preclude adding more than $4.4 billion to the highway program under certain circumstances. For instance, such a further increase could be possible if conference negotiations with the Senate result in a higher funding level for highways or if the Appropriations Committee, as an example, would allocate additional outlays to its transportation subcommittee by reducing outlays in some other function.

   I understand the gentleman will continue to work with the Budget Committee to help modify the caps, including those for highways and transit to, among other things, accommodate the additional transportation spending and to smooth out the year-to-year fluctuations in the revenue adjustments made under the RABA provision of TEA-21. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on this.

   Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I will

[Page: H1027]  GPO's PDF

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MORAN).

   Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, all of us have to vote against this rule, because all of us have voted to do so. Unless you were just elected in the past year, every single one of us have voted to protect Social Security and Medicare if at all possible. I offered the most reasonable amendment you could imagine, a trigger amendment. All it said was that we will give you a pass this year but beginning next year, if the Congressional Budget Office tells us that we are operating at a deficit, that we will have to dip into Social Security trust funds, then the Budget Committee has to produce a path, a budget plan over 5 years to bring us back into balance without using Social Security. That is all it does. If you vote against the rule, you are saying that you are letting off the Budget Committee from coming up with a 5-year plan that is not based upon raiding Social Security trust funds. And this budget does do that. That is the problem with this budget.

   There is a $224 billion deficit in this year's budget that is paid for by Social Security Trust Funds. Over the next 5 years, $830 billion comes out of the Social Security trust funds. Over the next 10 years, $1.6 trillion is going to come from Social Security trust funds. All we are saying is that as of next year, if you find that we are still operating at a deficit, give us a plan, a 5-year plan that will enable us to be good to our word, because five times we have voted for the lock box. Five times. 228 Republicans have voted for the lock box, saying we are not going to use Social Security to balance the budget. Yet here we are today, about to do exactly what we promised never to do.

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display