Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2004 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013.

Mr. Speaker, let me put this budget in context. Two years ago we all hailed a projected $5.6 trillion surplus, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle bet the budget on that surplus, that blue-sky forecast.

Two years later when the Office of Management and Budget sent us the budget for the next year, they acknowledged that was a vastly overstated estimate and that the surplus between 2002 and 2011 correctly estimated, accounting for the economy as we now see it, it is not $5.6 trillion, it is, according to the Office of Management and Budget, $2.4 trillion, and all of that has been committed.

Now, there is a serious consequence that flows from that finding. It is simply this: Everything that is done in the way of tax reduction or spending increases over and above current services goes straight to the bottom line. There is no surplus anymore to mitigate or cushion it. It goes straight to the bottom line and adds to the deficit.

Knowing this, knowing this, what do our Republican colleagues do? They call for $1.2 trillion in additional tax reduction, plus some big increases in defense and international affairs. What is the result? The result is that this year the deficit will be $347 billion. We will set a record. Back out Social Security, and the deficit is $512 billion.

Next year, in 2004, as a result of the policy choices about to be made in this budget resolution, the deficit will go to $385 billion. On-budget, excluding Social Security, it will be $558 billion.

Over the next 10 years, let me say it again, and, let me remind everybody, I am reading straight from your script, this is your budget, these are your numbers, over the next 10 years we will accumulate on- budget deficits of $4,006,130,000,000, your number.

The national debt, which today is $6.4 trillion, will increase over the next year by $984 billion. If you vote for this budget resolution, that is a direct consequence of it, using your arithmetic. Over the next 10 years, listen to this, the national debt ceiling will have to go to $12,040,000,000,000; from $6.4 trillion to 12,040,000,000,000 as a direct consequence of this budget resolution, according to your numbers.

You say we can grow out of it. We have to get this economy on its feet. Goodness knows, I agree, this wobbly economy needs help. But let me tell you, the underlying forecast upon which these numbers are based assumes that the economy will grow at 3.6 percent next year, real growth over and above inflation, and 3.2 percent over the next 10 years.

You have held out the prospect of dynamic scoring, saying these tax cuts could boost the economy and sort of replenish the revenues that they will be otherwise cutting out of the Treasury. CBO undertook to dynamically underscore the budget, and, guess what? Using nine economic models, in five out of nine, the deficit actually increases as a results of these tax cuts.

You say we have got to have spending cuts. Well, you have got them in this bill. This resolution would take domestic discretionary spending down by $168 billion below current services over the next 10 years. As for the other spending cuts, if that is what you say the prescription is and ought to be, where are they? Why not put them in your budget resolution?

What we have got here is a recipe for disaster, and I cannot overemphasize the results of this budget resolution using your own numbers. It takes us down a path of endless deficits and deeper and deeper into debt, so deep that this problem becomes almost intractable.

For those of us who were here in the 1980s and knew how long and hard and difficult it was to turn the budget around and put it into surplus again, we have an awfully forlorn, sinking feeling as we look at this budget, because we do not think, if you pass this budget resolution tonight, that we will be able to turn it around for a long time to come.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me make it clear to the gentleman, my good friend, the chairman of the committee, in the budget resolution we presented to the House, at the end of the year 2013, which is the last year in the 10-year time frame, our budget produced $1.3 trillion less debt than theirs, $1.3 trillion less debt. We laid it before the House. We got to a balanced budget, a unified balance in 2010. You do not get to one in this budget until 2012, and then it is only $9 billion. Any kind of turbulence in the economy would undo that.

There is a drastic difference between the two, and that is one of the reasons we were proud to present our budget resolution, to show there is an alternative.

This is not a necessary course of action. This is self-inflicted pain by your insistence on doing $1.2 trillion in additional tax cuts when there is no more surplus and that automatically increases the debt by $1.2 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Speaker, this is why legislation of this consequence should not be brought up at 1:30 in the morning with no prior notice.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman.

First of all, when the budget resolution before us now left the committee, it provided for $30 billion in Veterans Administration cuts, as the gentleman well knows.

Let me have the time.

Thirty billion dollars. It was reduced to $28 billion when it left the floor. When it comes out of conference and comes to us tonight, it is $6.2 billion less than current services over the next 10 years. And I say to the gentleman from New Jersey that this is $8.2 billion lower than the amount that our budget resolution provided when we had it on the floor and offered it as an alternative, $8.2 billion lower in this resolution today, and $6.2 billion below current services. This is a cut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond that if my colleague will read closely, she will see that there is a function called function 920, and in it she will see $128 billion in undistributed cuts. So all of these adds, all of these gains she is talking about, could very well be wiped out, and probably will be, once those cuts are distributed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) so he can set the record straight with respect to the Blue Dog budget, and I do not have enough time to correct all of that economic fiction.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to straighten out the Blue Dog budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me respond to my good friend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) by saying in 1990 when we did the budget summit with President Bush and passed it, do you recall who put the votes on the board to pass that? It was not your side. In the second vote, only 80 Republicans voted for President Bush's budget summit agreement. That laid the foundation for what happened in the 1990s.

In 1993 we put every vote on the board by one to pass the Clinton budget, and every year thereafter the budget deficit declined for 8 straight years, to the point where in 2000 the budget was in surplus by $236 billion.

We also came together in a bipartisan way on the balanced budget agreement of 1997, with President Clinton solidly supporting it. It never would have worked otherwise. So three times with tough votes we bellied up to this problem.

And we took the deficit of $290 billion the last full fiscal year of the Bush administration and turned it into a surplus of $236 billion. I would say to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), we put the votes on the board to make that happen. That is a fact, an undisputable fiscal fact.

Let me in closing say how far we have come in the wrong direction in the last 2 years. We have got a chance tonight to turn this ship around by voting down this budget resolution.

Two years ago we were talking about paying off all the debt held by the public by the year 2008. Now we have raised the debt ceiling, with the passage of this resolution, twice since then. Vote for this resolution and you will vote to raise the debt ceiling $984 billion, and, between now and 2013, to raise the debt ceiling to $12,040,000,000,000. That is a fact that comes from your numbers. That is how far we have come, and that is where we are headed, unless you make a decision tonight to take a different course.

I would plead with you. I will say it again and again and again, what we are seeing here are decisions about to be made that will be awfully difficult to undo. Your own numbers forewarn you. They tell the tale. Your on-budget deficit will not get below $300 billion. It is as high as $500 billion. You accumulate $5 trillion to $6 trillion in debt and add it to the national debt over the next 10 years.

These are not my concoctions or fabrications. These are your own numbers that tell the tale of what is about to happen.

Two years ago you took a blue sky estimate and bet the budget on it. It turned out wrong. Unfortunately, you are not chastened by that experience. But I am willing to say you made a mistake, an honest mistake. But now you cannot claim that this is an honest mistake, because OMB and CBO both told you there is no more surplus, so any tax cut you pass tonight, and you are going for another $1.2 trillion, will go straight to the bottom line. It will add to the deficit.

Two years ago it was possibly negligence. Tonight, if you pass this budget resolution, it is willful, wanton and intentional. You are adding to the deficit by direct policy choice. This is your fiscal policy that leads us to the disastrous consequences that are set forth on page two of your tables and charts.

$12 trillion in national debt is where we are headed if we adopt this resolution tonight. Your numbers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 191, I call up the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2004 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 95, the conference report considered this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report maintains the three principles of the budget resolution that was passed by the House of Representatives a few weeks back. We set forth three important principles that we felt were important as we considered the priorities for our Nation.

Number one was protecting America. We felt that that was a nonnegotiable item both in terms of homeland security and national defense. We felt that, as we considered the budget for next year, we needed to ensure that the President's requests were met in order to not only protect our country at home, but also deal with challenges abroad.

At the time we wrote the budget, we were not even sure exactly how the war against terrorism might be proceeding, let alone, at that time, the potential war against Iraq.

Tonight, we stand at the possible threshold of a victory that we all celebrate and honor. We appreciate the service of our troops. But as we discuss the budget, we know that we need resources in order to fuel their force and their might around the world. This budget accomplishes that feat.

The second principle was to strengthen the economy and great jobs. And I know there will be differences of opinion on this issue. Mr. Speaker, on the second principle of strengthening the economy and creating jobs, there is a difference of opinion, and that is very clear, between the minority and the majority.

What we believe our budget accomplishes is an economic growth package, yes, smaller than the one that was originally written. We definitely get the entire growth package within this negotiation that the President requested. Probably nobody in this budget got everything they wanted, I can attest to that, but I can tell you that it sets up a debate and a process for us to consider some important legislation on growth, on tax simplification, on tax reform, to get the economy going and growing again.

Now, we know from hearings and testimony of some very important and learned economists, including Alan Greenspan, it is going to take a little bit of push and shove from a fiscal standpoint in order to get the economy growing again. We accommodate this in the budget with an instruction to write a tax bill at $550 billion over the next 10 years.

But do not kid anybody. Within the scope of the tax bills that have been passed for this country in the past, this is not a large tax bill. And we will discuss the specific policy at another time when the Committee on Ways and Means, following that instruction, brings the tax bill forward.

The third important principle that we sought to achieve was fiscal responsibility, and in this regard what we tried to do is do two things. One is limit spending. The original bill, as Members will remember, that passed the House had what I would call some pretty bold attempts to not just go after the Committee on Appropriations and the appropriations bills that are on the floor for the next, hopefully, 3 months, 4 months, both in terms of the initial consideration, as well as their conference reports that we will haggle over, an amendment here and an amendment there, for a million here and a million there; and, yes, all of that does add up, while two-thirds of the budget in entitlement spending goes unchecked, unreformed, undiscussed in many respects, and, in fact, in many respects just added onto.

We set up a process. That process has been rejected. That is fine. We live to fight another day. But within this budget that we say is for fiscal responsibility, we need to start that process. It is not just the duty of the Committee on Appropriations to look for savings within the budget.

Friends from all of the authorizing committees, it is all of our duties to look for savings; waste, fraud and abuse are certainly part of it, but reforms to ensure that these entitlement programs work in the most beneficial and efficient way for the people that they are intended for.

While no one can come to the floor tonight, although I heard during the rule debate quite a discussion about cuts here and cuts there, I do not know what you are discussing because there are no cuts in this budget when it comes to those mandatory programs; but we do set up a process to get the committees of jurisdiction to begin looking for that waste, fraud and abuse and to report back to the Committee on the Budget their findings.

We also within here limit the growth of spending overall. Spending over the last 5 years in particular since we reached balance has been explosive, and even with that explosive spending, which has been added into the baseline, there are people who come here tonight who are suggesting we are not spending enough, and in fact, we may never ever spend enough.

In fact, the letters to the Committee on Appropriations are already piling up for requests for additional spending. There were amendments in our committee, and there will be amendments in more committees for more and more and more spending. You may not do that and come to the floor here tonight and tell us that it is wrong for us to increase the debt ceiling.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, Member after Member has come to the floor, Mr. Speaker, and told us about the debt and explained to us how the debt is going to increase under just the Republican version of the budget. Let us take a look at the Democrat version of the budget.

Yes, it is true we increase the debt at a time when we are at war, at a time

when we are at an economic disadvantage, at a time when we have had a national emergency. Do we ask to increase the debt? Yes, we do. We ask to increase the debt a little over $880 billion. Shocking amount of money, is it not?

How much does the Democrats bill ask us, Mr. Speaker, to increase the debt? About the same amount of money. Oh, that is, of course, not going to be discussed here tonight because, of course, they only want to focus on the Republican plan.

Well, we have got a plan and it is a good plan, and it deals with the priorities of America, protecting America, being fiscally responsible and getting the economy going again in creating jobs. But do not come to the floor and tell us about our big debt increase when you ask for more money, when your letters pile up at the Committee on Appropriations, and when your alternative Democrat plan raised the debt ceiling as well.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to just be able to respond and say we increase the transportation fund $30 billion. I cannot believe that the gentleman would suggest that that is a paltry sum, number one; and, number two, you better get with the other communicators, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, because they are talking about not increasing the debt. Spending more money, seems to me we have got to increase that debt.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to just say the gentleman from New York has not referenced one provision within our budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say that if our budget is so irresponsible, why is it that the budget that the gentleman supported, the very distinguished gentleman who is a member of, I believe, the Blue Dog coalition, why did he support a budget that increased the national debt by almost a similar amount? I would suggest that he needs to look at his own budget before criticizing the budget in the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, just to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), 2013, that seems like a long way away. Let us talk about next year and what the Blue Dog budget does next year. It increases the debt limit. That is interesting. There are lots of complaints about raising the debt limit; but both of the alternatives provided by the other party raise the debt limit in 2004. Spend a lot of money, even had a tax cut. All of these complaints seem to be very curious when they come to the floor and are complaining about raising the debt today. The debt limit increase was almost identical to the conference report that we are providing here tonight.

So it is fine that you can come here and wax philosophical about what is going to happen in 2013, but what happens next year, let us focus on that is what I would suggest. The two budgets that were presented by a majority of caucus from the Democratic side increased the debt limit. In addition, to that we have heard time and time again here tonight how we are not spending enough. I will guarantee Members that as we get into the appropriation season, we will hear speech after speech after speech telling us how we are not spending money for this and how we are not spending enough money for that, and how we have not made it a priority here and how we have not made it a priority there. And I would say to the whip who came and quoted me and said I had a dirty little secret about the Republican Party and the fact that we like to spend, I will tell Members, it is not a secret that the Democrats like to spend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to myself.

Mr. Speaker, the war supplemental is in the budget that we are presenting.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and hope he can set the record straight.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, how much do you increase the debt limit for next year?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to our very distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I invite all of my colleagues to recognize the extraordinary leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for presenting a budget to this House that is a statement of our national values. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today we gathered in Statuary Hall to honor our men and women in uniform and their families. In doing so, we were reminded of our own mission, to build a future for our country worthy of their sacrifice, to build a future for their children and all children worthy of those children.

To build a future worthy of them, we need a budget which is a statement of

our national values. Instead, tonight we have a budget before us which is a national disgrace.

We need a budget resolution which is a blueprint for investing in our children and for job creation. Instead, we have a road map to economic disaster. Instead of investing in our children, we are making them indebted. We are mortgaging their futures for a tax break which benefits those who need it least, the wealthiest in our country.

It is no wonder that the Republicans want to bring this budget to the floor in the dark of night. It is 2 o'clock in the morning, just 11 o'clock in California, so hopefully people there will hear about this budget, that the Republicans do not want the American people to know.

They do not want them to know, for example, that while we honor our men and women in uniform, we are also tonight cutting their benefits by $6.2 billion. They do not want the American people to see their charts, which will show, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) indicated, that by the year 2013 they will double the national debt to $12 trillion.

This is at a time where the Bush economic failed policies have taken us to consumer confidence being very low, retail sales moving at the lowest rate in a decade, and factory orders and manufacturing are down. The economic indicators are dismal. And the reaction of the Republicans? They offer more of their warmed-over stew: Tax cuts which benefit the wealthy.

Under President Bush, our country has lost 2.5 million jobs, the worst record of job creation since the depression. Under President Clinton, 22 million jobs were created, largely because of the sound fiscal policy that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) referenced in the budget vote that only Democrats supported.

This Republican plan will cause more job loss. Job loss for American workers to give tax breaks to America's wealthiest. It simply is not fair.

Not only is the Republican budget not fair, it is fiscally irresponsible. I ask you, my colleagues, where have all the budget deficit hawks gone? I ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), are they an endangered species? It seems they are. The tax cuts in this budget, again, will double the national debt in the life of this budget to $12 trillion.

It bears repetition. How old will your children be in 10 years? Do you want to weigh their futures down with huge debt?

The interest on the debt alone in the life of this budget, the interest on the debt alone in the out years will exceed all discretionary domestic spending. We will pay more interest on the debt to pay for this reckless tax cut than we will spend on investing in education, than we will invest in protecting the environment, transportation, infrastructure, which grows our economy and protects our environment, and housing. The list goes on and on. Head Start, investments in our children, all of that investment will be exceeded by interest on the national debt. What a tragedy.

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

The office went on to say that the downturn in investment that will result from this plan will be a drag on the economy.

More than 400 economists, including 10 Nobel Laureates said, ``Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long term budget outlook, adding to the Nation's projected chronic deficits.''

Finally, the report by the Committee for Economic Development, a blue-ribbon organization of corporate CEOs stated, ``The budget deficits, the President's plan, would be akin to `arsenic poisoning' for the economy.'' A vote for this budget is a vote for arsenic poisoning for the economy.

If that would not be enough, just yesterday, the IMF sharply rebuked the Bush and Republican budget proposal. And they said, ``Suppose for a moment we were talking about a developing country with a gaping trade deficit year after year as far as the eye can see, a budget spinning from black into red, open-ended security costs, and an exchange rate that has been inflated by capital inflows. With all of that, the IMF said, I think it is fair to say we would be pretty concerned if it were a developing nation.''

``The United States,'' it went on to say, ``isn't a developing country but, nonetheless, for the global economy, the Bush tax cut is poor policy and ill-timed. Whether we are talking about job creation for America's families or lifting up the global economy, this is a very bad idea.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican's reckless, irresponsible budget, which explodes the deficit, does not create jobs, and dishonors our commitment to our children. Do the right thing. Vote no, no, no on the arsenic poisoning of our economy, the Republican budget.

Mr. Speaker, no poor Republican member of the Committee on Rules who was given this assignment has risen to defend this rule. Certainly the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has not.

This started out as a House joint concurrent resolution. ``Concurrent'' meant that it would be agreed upon by both sides. They have dropped the ``current'' and it is now just a ``con,'' a con on the American people, a con on this institution.

Tonight, they sound the death knell for the policy of fiscal discipline, and are poised to drive our Nation into spiralling and historic debt. They put us on the path to increased debt by more than $5.5 trillion, and then to $12 trillion.

Here is the real kicker: There will be no debate on this stealth action and there will be no vote; there will only be a swelling sea of debt that promises to drown our future prosperity.

Yes, it is a con job. Let us remember the unequivocal words of the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), which still reverberate throughout this Chamber. Ten years and 12 days ago, here is what he said: ``Here we are being asked to raise the debt ceiling so this government can go on borrowing money to take care of its spending habits. I think that is outrageous,'' said the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). ``I hope the Members of this House will vote against raising the debt ceiling,'' said the gentleman from Texas, ``and I hope the American people will contact the Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, and urge them to vote against raising the debt ceiling.''

Where is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)? Where is he when we raise the debt by $860 billion this year and $5 trillion over the next 10? Where is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)?

They claim this is an economic growth package. They claimed it in 2001. We lost 2.6 million private-sector jobs, 4 million more Americans without health care, real business investment has fallen by 5.7 percent, and 2 million Americans have moved from middle class to poverty. Where is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)?

Have the integrity to stand up and vote for America's children and America's future. Vote down this rule. Vote down this budget.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, this is the dirty secret that Republicans do not want to admit. We did not control spending. That is Chairman Nussle, some 15 days ago. The Committee on the Budget says Republicans believe repaying the debt is the right thing to do. It says, in its report dated March 13, 2001, it is wrong for this generation to saddle future generations with debt.

It has taken them some less than 2 years to change that view and proceed to create gargantuan debt. And my colleagues, we considered this budget some days ago, and the sun did not set for six times until they came to this floor and for 40 minutes railed against the gentleman's motion to instruct, the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). For 40 minutes the Republicans railed against it, and then they voted for it.

They voted for it because they knew the cuts that were proposed in that budget were not sustainable, were not supportable. Yet they all voted for it and they flip-flopped 6 days later. How short a memory my colleagues have.

My Republican colleagues say they are against debt. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget has gotten up on this floor time after time and said, we need to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. Let me just say that the waste is the time and the paper we have used to consider this resolution, which sadly simply reflects a deep division within the Republican Party reflected by this fiscal irresponsibility.

This budget will not be followed. Hear me. My colleagues will not follow it any more than they followed the budget that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) offered last year and for which my colleagues voted last year. It was never adopted. Eleven appropriation bills sat in our committee. Why? Because Republicans could not get the votes on their side of the floor to pass them, consistent with their budget, because they were not real.

The fraud is on the American people. The fraud is on the young people of America. The fraud is on the veterans, I say to my friend from New Jersey. The fraud is in the rhetoric that Republicans have used seeking support from their constituents seeking fiscal responsibility.

And the abuse, my friends, of the fraud, waste and abuse, the abuse is the abuse of process which the consideration tonight of this budget with just hours' notice reflects. Yes, there is fraud, waste and abuse, and it is within this budget. Reject it. We can do better. We should do better. We must do better.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, since this mammoth budget was made available to Members of this House only a couple of hours ago, it is difficult to know exactly what goodies and gimmicks are hidden inside of it.

We know enough, however, to know that this Republican budget is bad for the economy, bad for American working families, and bad for the future of our country. In other words, we know enough to vote ``no.'' I have to give the majority credit, though; they have brought the term ``creative accounting'' to new heights. Never before have I seen a ``unified'' budget conference report with two different budgets in it. I guess this is what they mean by ``new math.''

Under this model of budgetary mischief, the House tax cut costs $550 billion, while the Senate tax cut costs $350 billion. It is extraordinary, it is dishonest, and it is shameful.

Why is the Republican majority trying to get away with this trick? Because despite all of their rhetoric last year, they cannot get their own membership to agree to a single tax cut figure. They are stymied by a few Members of the other body who believe that maybe, just maybe, it is not such a great idea to spend over half a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy while the deficits explodes, while we are fighting a war overseas with unknown costs, while the baby boom generation nears retirement, while millions of seniors cannot afford their prescription drugs, and while our States are facing their worst fiscal agencies, their priorities are crystal clear. Instead of deficit reduction, economic stimulus, and adequate funding for things like homeland security, health care, veterans, education and environmental cleanup, the Republicans prefer tax cuts for millionaires. No wonder they do not want Members to read this budget.

Now tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we are told that we will vote on the supplemental. That bill contains nearly $2 billion to help rebuild Iraq. What is striking to many people is that Congress seems to understand, rightly, in my view, that health care is important for the people of Iraq, that education is important for the people of Iraq, that rebuilding roads and bridges is important for the people of Iraq. But when we look at this budget, it is clear that the majority does not understand that health care or education or transportation is important for the people of the United States, the people who are actually paying for the war.

Those people, the American people, they deserve a budget that reflects their priorities, not the priorities of a wealthy few. They deserve a budget that actually pays for its tax cuts, not one that uses so-called dynamic scoring to claim that one minus one equals three. They deserve a budget that is fiscally responsible, that does not leave future generations crushed by even more debt. They deserve a budget that helps make college more affordable, that helps pay for prescription drugs, that strengthens homeland security, and keeps our promises to our veterans.

In short, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a lot better than this. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and to vote ``no'' on the Republican budget.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Washington how many speakers he has.

No. We have every second claimed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 2 minutes of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

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.